I'm looking for an alternative word to use instead of "non-evaluativeness" which is long and not very common. Any ideas are appreciated.


Non-evaluativeness: Abstract should report the findings and data, it should not evaluate them.

  • "Low stakes" comes to mind. We use this in education to describe testing that has little or no effect on a student's grade. – Steven Littman Jun 13 '15 at 10:08
  • @StevenLittman: That doesn't sound appropriate to use in the example I just wrote. Does it? – user246836 Jun 13 '15 at 10:11
  • heh that's one of the worst words I've ever seen! – Fattie Jun 13 '15 at 11:18
  • As Brian has explained you want non-analytical. – Fattie Jun 13 '15 at 11:20
  • The adjective 'raw' would in one of its senses be spot on:<< 1d. Not having been subjected to adjustment, treatment, or analysis: raw data; the raw cost of production.>> [ AHDEL ] But 'rawness' has a distinctly pejorative flavour hereabouts: <<rawness, incompleteness n. the state of being crude and incomplete and imperfect; "the study was criticized for incompleteness of data but it stimulated further research"; "the rawness of his diary made it unpublishable" >> [ lexipedia]. – Edwin Ashworth Jun 13 '15 at 11:20

It sounds like you are trying to say that the Abstract should be observational only. Or that it should be non-analytical. Or that it should draw no conclusions from the data.

  • Yes, that is right. I'm writing a table to name four criteria that a good manuscript should meet before submission. My audience are students who want to write a paper in the future. The first column uses a noun to briefly indicate a good feature (Ex: Accuracy, non-evaluativeness, coherence and readability, conciseness). The second columns explains what I mean by that noun. I'm looking for a better noun to use instead of "non-evaluativeness" which is long and not commonly used. Is it clear what I'm looking for now? (I'm sorry if my question had been phrased ambiguously at first) – user246836 Jun 13 '15 at 10:40
  • 1
    What you just said does not add anything to my understanding of your original question. You seem to be taking my answer above as a request for further explanation. I realize I gave you adjectives rather than nouns, but that's all I have to offer. Is there a problem with using adjectives (readable, concise, coherent....)? – Brian Hitchcock Jun 13 '15 at 10:54

objectivity (noun):

the state of being objective, just, unbiased and not influenced by emotions or personal prejudices

Wiktionary; Wikipedia (see sections on scientific and journalistic objectivity)


Just give us a readout of the data, you know, a nonjudgmental report on what the heck is happening down at the bottom of shaft 39.

If you want to be mean about it:

Employees at your level lack the expertise to understand the implications of the information. We do not want another Deepwater Horizon on our hands here.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.