# “Abstract” in caps font for article class

I'm submitting a paper that must be written using the article class. But I prefer the way the word "abstract" in the all caps font I've seen in some papers. Is there a way to replicate this? Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.siam.org/students/siuro/vol6/S01125.pdf

• Have you tried \renewcommand\abstractname{\textsc{Abstract}}? – Xavier May 16 '13 at 1:09
• – Werner May 16 '13 at 1:41

The abstract name is saved inside the \abstractname variable (for internationalization purpose). So an easy way to hack this is to redefine that variable to force small caps, i.e.

\renewcommand\abstractname{\textsc{Abstract}}


Using the standard article.cls class, you won't however notice any difference. But take a closer look at your log file, and you will notice the following:

LaTeX Font Warning: Font shape OT1/cmr/bx/sc' undefined
(Font) using OT1/cmr/bx/n' instead on input line 4.

What happens is that LaTeX tries to typeset the abstract title both in bold (as instructed by article.cls and in small caps (as instructed by our code above). But the standard Computer Modern font doesn't provide such a font variant!

Hence, to get it to work, you either need to switch to a font that provides a bold small caps variant, such as Linux Libertine (\usepackage{libertine}), or to cancel out the bold option, i.e.

\renewcommand\abstractname{\normalfont\textsc{Abstract}}

• The best method to start in a fresh state is to use \normalfont or \textnormal{...} – egreg May 16 '13 at 8:47
• @egreg Right, I'll change that! – Xavier May 16 '13 at 14:55
• This is good, as I can change it to whatever style I like! – Yan King Yin May 12 '15 at 0:03

People in charge with journal or conference proceedings typesetting have two strategies available:

1. publish a class that authors of submissions should stick to, or
2. ask contributors to use the article class.

Both strategies have pros and cons. Strategy 1 requires contributors to read a short manual for the special class, download the class and put it in some good place on their machine; strategy 2 is easier, but more dangerous for copy editors.

Why is it more dangerous? Because contributors will try tweaking the output to their own tastes, rather than keeping it as generic as possible.

So, changing how "Abstract" is printed is none of your business, but the copy editors'. Leave it as is, the copy editors will apply their choice anyway and the redefinion you make in your LaTeX document will only annoy them.

If, instead, you want to change the appearance of the "Abstract" tag to suit your tastes for your own documents, it's better to change the way the abstract is typeset:

\usepackage{etoolbox}
\patchcmd{\abstract}
{\bfseries\abstractname}
{\scshape\abstractname}
{}{}


In this way even documents where you print the abstract in different languages will do the right thing out of the box, if you use babel facilities:

<...>
\usepackage[italian,english]{babel}
<...>

\usepackage{etoolbox}

\patchcmd{\abstract}
{\bfseries\abstractname}
{\scshape\abstractname}
{}{}

\begin{document}

<...>

\begin{abstract}
This is the abstract in English.
\end{abstract}

\begin{otherlanguage}{italian}
\begin{abstract}
Questo è il sunto in italiano.
\end{abstract}
\end{otherlanguage}

<...>