An abstract is not a summary of a topic. It is a short, complete case for a paper: what question you ask, which texts you read, how you read them, what you argue, and why it matters. Our academic team reads every abstract in the way a peer-reviewed journal would, and every author receives written feedback within 15 days. This guide shows what we look for, so that you can write a strong abstract the first time, or revise one after feedback.
1. The basic requirements
- Length: 250 to 300 words, excluding the title and keywords.
- Title: precise and informative. Name your text or corpus and your angle. Avoid repeating the name of a stream.
- Keywords: 4 to 6, each one different, separated by commas.
- Stream: choose the stream that matches your argument, not only your topic. An abstract about artificial intelligence with no ecological focus belongs in Stream I or II, not Stream III.
- Form: one paragraph, written in the present tense, with no footnotes and no quotations longer than a few words.
- Anonymity: do not put your name, institution or email inside the abstract itself; these go in the form fields.
2. The six moves of a strong abstract
Most strong humanities abstracts make six moves, usually in this order. Each move can be one or two sentences.
- Context. Place your subject in a current scholarly conversation. One sentence is enough. Do not explain what a whole field is (for example, "Ecocriticism is the study of literature and the environment").
- Gap or problem. Say what existing readings have missed, simplified or not yet asked.
- Research question or aim. State precisely what your paper asks.
- Texts, theory and method. Name your primary texts (author, title, year) and the specific theorists or concepts you use. If you use a survey, interviews or computational tools, say so and describe them briefly.
- Argument. State your thesis: the claim your paper will defend. This is the most important sentence. Use a verb such as "argues", "shows" or "contends", followed by a claim someone could disagree with.
- Contribution. Say what your reading adds: to the study of the text, to a theory, or to the conference theme.
3. Topic or argument? The key difference
"This paper explores the theme of technology and humanity in contemporary fiction."
"This paper argues that the clones' art in Never Let Me Go exposes a humanism that recognises life only when it can be displayed as evidence."
The first sentence names an area. The second makes a claim about a named text that the paper must prove. Reviewers look for the second kind.
4. A model abstract
The model below was written by the RCELL academic team to show the six moves. It is an illustration only and is not a paper submitted to this conference.
Proof of a Soul: Art, Care and the Limits of the Human in Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go
ContextCritical posthumanism has questioned the assumption that "the human" is a stable category that some lives fully possess and others lack. GapReadings of Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go (2005) have rightly focused on cloning and bioethics, but they have paid less attention to the novel's interest in art as a test of humanity. QuestionThis paper asks why the guardians at Hailsham collect the students' artwork, what this practice reveals about the conditions under which a life is recognised as human, and how Kathy's calm, unprotesting narration draws the reader into the same act of judgement. Texts and methodThrough close reading of Kathy H.'s narration and of the Gallery episodes, with particular attention to Tommy's late drawings of imaginary animals and to the final meeting with Madame and Miss Emily, in which the purpose of the Gallery is revealed, and drawing on Rosi Braidotti's critique of humanism in The Posthuman (2013) and Judith Butler's account of grievable life in Frames of War (2009), Argumentthe paper argues that the Gallery does not defend the clones' humanity but exposes the humanism that demands proof of it: a humanism that values a life only when it can be displayed as evidence of an inner self. The students' care for one another, which needs no audience, emerges as the novel's quieter and more radical answer. ContributionBy reading care rather than creativity as the novel's measure of a life, the paper contributes to posthumanist literary criticism and to current debates about how societies decide which minds and bodies count, debates that artificial intelligence has made newly urgent.
Keywords: critical posthumanism, Kazuo Ishiguro, grievability, care ethics, humanism, cloning
Notice what the model does: it names one text, two theorists with their works, one question and one claim. It avoids a general opening, a list of themes and phrases such as "this paper will try to explore".
5. Common mistakes, and how to fix them
| Mistake | How to fix it |
|---|---|
| No primary text is named | Name one to three literary works (author, title, year), or a clearly defined corpus. |
| The abstract describes a topic but makes no claim | Add one thesis sentence: "This paper argues that…". |
| A textbook opening ("In the present scenario…", "Ecocriticism is…") | Delete it. Begin with the specific scholarly conversation your paper joins. |
| Too many aims in one paper | Choose one question you can answer in a 10-minute presentation. |
| "Posthumanism" or "ecocriticism" with no theorist named | Name the thinker and the concept you use, for example Donna Haraway's cyborg or Rob Nixon's slow violence. |
| An idea from another scholar is presented without credit | Name its source. Using a well-known argument is fine; presenting it as your own is not. |
| Under 250 words, or over 300 | Expand the method and argument, or cut the general background. |
| The stream does not match the argument | Tell us the correct stream in your reply; there is no need to resubmit the form. |
6. How we review abstracts
Every abstract is read against the same eight criteria, the standard used by peer-reviewed journals in the humanities:
- Research problem: a clear question or gap, not only a topic.
- Argument: a thesis the paper will defend.
- Primary texts: named, and suited to the question.
- Theory and method: named, and appropriate to the texts.
- Contribution: what the paper adds to existing scholarship.
- Fit: relevance to the conference theme and to the chosen stream.
- Form: length, keywords, title and clear academic English.
- Integrity: ideas credited to their sources, and any use of generative AI disclosed.
We do not reject abstracts. Each author receives specific feedback and is guided to acceptance through revision. Abstracts that raise an ethical concern, such as plagiarism or undisclosed AI-generated content, are handled separately under our Terms and Conditions.
7. A note on generative AI
You may use AI tools to check grammar or language. If you use them for anything more, such as drafting, structuring or generating ideas, you must say so in the form. In every case the argument, the reading of the texts and the references must be your own, and you remain responsible for their accuracy. Always check that every work and author you cite exists and says what you claim.
8. Before you submit or revise: checklist
- My title names my text or corpus and my angle.
- I name my primary text(s) with author and year.
- I name the theorists or method I use, with the concept I take from each.
- My abstract contains one clear thesis sentence.
- I say what my paper contributes.
- I have chosen the stream that fits my argument.
- My abstract is 250 to 300 words, with 4 to 6 different keywords.
- There is no general or textbook opening.
- Every borrowed idea is credited, and any AI use is disclosed.
- I have read it aloud once to check the English.
9. After you receive feedback
Simply reply to the feedback email with your revised abstract. There is no need to fill in the form again. If you would like to change your stream or title, say so in the same reply. Once your revised abstract meets the criteria above, we will send you a formal letter of acceptance.