When you are writing a paper, how do you use "conclusions" versus "summaries?" I think writers are often interchange these words, and to me they are quite different.

Or is this yet another case of the words evolving and becoming synonyms?

In a paper a summary would normally be at the beginning, giving a precis of the contents, so that readers could decide whether the paper was relevant to their own work, and save administrators etc. from having to read the whole thing.

The conclusions are what what the paper decides about the subject discussed. They would be set out towards the end of the paper, although the main conclusions would be also included in the summary.

Interesting, Arnie. I don't know if that is a discipline difference or a cultural difference. However, in the papers I read in the health care fields, the summary and conclusions are towards the end. The beginning may have either an executive summary (is that what you mean?) or an abstract.

To me, the end of paper summary essentially reviews briefly the major premises of the paper. Yet, to me, a conclusion may even have new information, as it makes assertions based on what was presented in the paper. Conclusions are an important part of a research paper because after analyzing the data, the research must come to some sort of opinion, based on the findings. Papers other than research often have conclusions, too. I liked MW definition of "conclusion" best: " a judgment or opinion inferred from relevant facts."

My point is that often I have seen a "summary" at the end of the paper with new information...opinions based on the facts presented. That should be a "conclusion." Likewise, I have seen a review of the major points of a paper, with no analysis of what was presented, being called a "conclusion." That's a "summary."

Or am I just being nitpicky?

The writer might summarise the main points towards the end before going on to the conclusion, but there would still normally be a summary at the beginning.

quote:

My point is that often I have seen a "summary" at the end of the paper with new information...opinions based on the facts presented. That should be a "conclusion." Likewise, I have seen a review of the major points of a paper, with no analysis of what was presented, being called a "conclusion." That's a "summary."

I agree.

Whether it comes at the beginning or the end your definitions seem to be about right to me.

The distiction is that a summary presents a brief version of the important points whereas a conclusion says what can be deduced from those points. Seems quite a clear cut distinction to me.