Johhny Electriglide wrote:
Sounds like you have some corrections to make in regards to the liar who is taking credit due you.
As far as the abstract goes, step back and look at how it will sound to those you will present it to. Is it understandable, and complete as much as possible? I'm sure you will get it done.
I have been criticized for "dumbing down" my papers, but I do intend for the larger audience to be able to read them and understand them enough to actually use the information I have presented. My problem with the current abstract is that it went backwards. I usually propose a paper to such a conference based on data I have set aside for just that use. Thus, I already know what I will say and what data can be used to support and/or explain what I say. In this case they wanted me to commit to another presentation because of the response to my previous conference presentation two years ago. This time I was asked to cover a topic for which I had not gathered specific data, so I had no specific statements in my abstract. I know what the data will generally indicate, but no speicfics until I start the data gathering and writing process, which will be later this month.
The authorship may be a function of the professional media site as I have found other secondary authors which are listed first. I added one of my papers to my profile there and it automatically wanted to list me as primary author, which is a bit odd.