Abstract-writing is an art, not a science. This guide is an attempt to demystify it for the AMS community submitting proposals for the Annual Meeting, and to provide some pointers for success. The guide is followed by an Appendix including samples of high-scoring abstracts for individual papers, for posters, for roundtables and for panel sessions. We hope that this short document will be helpful to members, whatever their level of experience.

The advice below is aimed at those writing the abstract submitted for scrutiny rather than the edited abstract that finally appears in the Program Book. It also assumes that at the time of writing, research on the project is advanced enough for the author to be confident in identifying conclusions and pointing to their wider implications.

General

• Read some successful abstracts. Identify commonalities and conventions but be aware that the initial proposal might have contained more specifics on findings and conclusions. 
• Be clear, concise, and compelling. Don’t try to be clever, complex, or cute.
• Be collegial. Unless the purpose of your paper/session is to correct or refute, don’t criticize other scholars or bemoan the shortcomings of a whole field.
• Use simple, short sentences. A direct and concise first sentence can be powerful.
• Avoid (or explain) jargon, acronyms, or other specialized terminology that wouldn’t reasonably be familiar to all the members of the Program Committee.
• Multiple paragraphs (e.g., 2 or 3 in a 350-word abstract) are generally easier on abstract readers’ eyes than a single, long paragraph.
• Consider that readers will likely spend no more than a few minutes on your abstract and may be reading hundreds of others.

Individual papers, individual abstracts for panel sessions, lecture recitals and posters

Successful abstracts usually provide answers to a small core of questions:

• • What is your argument?
  • How did you reach your conclusions?
  • Why are your conclusions important/new enough to share?

• Provide an easily identifiable thesis statement, e.g., “This paper argues (demonstrates, etc.).”
• Articulate the scope of the paper whether in terms of repertoire, dates, region, people, etc.
• Indicate how your work connects to or builds upon the work of other scholars.
• Identify your source material and methodology, e.g., archives, interviews, analysis.
• State clearly what your findings are.
• Answer the “So what?” question: the fact that no one has done it before, or that the subject is mainstream, is not sufficient. (Think about what someone in a different musicological area might find useful in your work.)
• Minimize speculation. If you say “I hope to find … ” or “I hope to raise questions about …” you’re unlikely to inspire confidence.
• Indicate how the music performed at your lecture recital aids your argument.

Convenor statements for roundtables and panel sessions

• Explain the importance and/or timeliness of the subject-area chosen.
• Outline how the contributions of each of your speakers will add up to a coherent session.
• Show that you have thought about your target constituencies for the session.
• Be clear about the goals and/or main questions of the session. What do you want your audience to take away from it?

Model Submission Abstracts

The following submissions were highly rated by the AMS Annual Meeting Program Committee reviewers. Author information has been redacted for privacy, but authors have consented to their proposals being shared. Please note, the abstracts represent each presenter’s initial submission and therefore may not necessarily align with the abstract in the final program.

This guide was prepared by the AMS Committee on the Annual Meeting and Public Events (CAMPE) in collaboration with the Program Committee.