The quality of a random sample of newly submitted manuscript abstracts (N = 50) was reviewed using content analysis to determine adherence to published criteria in relation to content, style, and length. One or more content elements (purpose, subjects, method, results, conclusions) were found to be missing from 32% of the submissions; recommended length was exceeded in 54% of cases. Inaccuracies (16%), obscure language or undefined acronyms (68%), and lack of match with manuscript content (20%) also were found. These findings are congruent with the hypothesis that guidelines are not consistently followed by authors and suggest that abstract preparation may not be adequately taught in research courses.