What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review

Are plain language summaries more readable than scientific abstracts? Evidence from six biomedical and life sciences journals

In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.

Publishing clinical trial results in plain language: a clash of ethical principles?

Plain language resources (PLR) are lay summaries of clinical trial results or plain language summaries of publications, in digital/visual/language formats. They aim to provide accurate information in jargon-free, and easy-to-understand language that can meet the health information needs of the general public, especially patients and caregivers. These are typically developed by the study sponsors or investigators, or by national public health bodies, research hospitals, patient organizations, and non-profit organizations. While the usefulness of PLR seems unequivocal, they have never been analyzed from the perspective of ethics. In this commentary, we do so and reflect on whether PLR are categorically advantageous or if they solve certain issues but raise new problems at the same time. Ethical concerns that PLR can potentially address include but are not limited to individual and community level health literacy, patient empowerment and autonomy. We also highlight the ethical issues that PLR may potentially exacerbate, such as fair balanced presentation and interpretation of medical knowledge, positive publication bias, and equitable access to information. PLR are important resources for patients, with promising implications for individual as well as community health. However, they require appropriate oversight and standards to optimize their potential value. Hence, we also highlight recommendations and best practices from our reading of the literature, that aim to minimize these biases.

Author instructions in biomedical journals infrequently address systematic review reporting and methodology: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to analyze how instructions for authors in journals indexed in MEDLINE address systematic review (SR) reporting and methodology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed instructions for authors in 20% of MEDLINE-indexed journals listed in the online catalog of the National Library of Medicine on July 27, 2021. We extracted data only from the instructions published in English. We extracted data on the existence of instructions for reporting and methodology of SRs.

RESULTS

Instructions from 1,237 journals mentioned SRs in 45% (n = 560) of the cases. Systematic review (SR) registration was mentioned in 104/1,237 (8%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SR protocols were found in 155/1,237 (13%) of instructions. Guidelines for reporting SRs were explicitly mentioned in 461/1,237 (37%), whereas the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research) network was referred to in 474/1,237 (38%) of instructions. Less than 2% (n = 20) of instructions mentioned risk of bias and meta-analyses; less than 1% mentioned certainty of evidence assessment, methodological expectations, updating of SRs, overviews of SRs, or scoping reviews.

CONCLUSION

Journals indexed in MEDLINE rarely provide instructions for authors regarding SR reporting and methodology. Such instructions could potentially raise authors' awareness and improve how SRs are prepared and reported.

Recommended characteristics and processes for writing lay summaries of healthcare evidence: a co-created scoping review and consultation exercise

BACKGROUND

Lay summaries (LSs) of scientific evidence are critical to sharing research with non-specialist audiences. This scoping review with a consultation exercise aimed to (1) Describe features of the available LS resources; (2) Summarize recommended LS characteristics and content; (3) Outline recommended processes to write a LS; and (4) Obtain stakeholder perspectives on LS characteristics and writing processes.

METHODS

This project was a patient and public partner (PPP)-initiated topic co-led by a PPP and a researcher. The team was supported by three additional PPPs and four researchers. A search of peer-reviewed (Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane libraries, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and PubMed data bases) and grey literature was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodological Guidance for Scoping Reviews to include any resource that described LS characteristics and writing processes. Two reviewers screened and extracted all resources. Resource descriptions and characteristics were organized by frequency, and processes were inductively analyzed. Nine patient and public partners and researchers participated in three consultation exercise sessions to contextualize the review findings.

RESULTS

Of the identified 80 resources, 99% described characteristics of a LS and 13% described processes for writing a LS. About half (51%) of the resources were published in the last two years. The most recommended characteristics were to avoid jargon (78%) and long or complex sentences (60%). The most frequently suggested LS content to include was study findings (79%). The key steps in writing a LS were doing pre-work, preparing for the target audience, writing, reviewing, finalizing, and disseminating knowledge. Consultation exercise participants prioritized some LS characteristics differently compared to the literature and found many characteristics oversimplistic. Consultation exercise participants generally supported the writing processes found in the literature but suggested some refinements.

CONCLUSIONS

Writing LSs is potentially a growing area, however, efforts are needed to enhance our understanding of important LS characteristics, create resources with and for PPPs, and develop optimal writing processes.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.