Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts

Abstract

BackgroundJournals are trying to make their papers more accessible by creating a variety of research summaries including graphical abstracts, video abstracts, and plain language summaries. It is unknown if individuals with science, science-related, or non-science careers prefer different summaries, which approach is most effective, or even what criteria should be used for judging which approach is most effective. A survey was created to address this gap in our knowledge. Two papers from Nature on similar research topics were chosen, and different kinds of research summaries were created for each one. Questions to measure comprehension of the research, as well as self-evaluation of enjoyment of the summary, perceived understanding after viewing the summary, and the desire for more updates of that summary type were asked to determine the relative merits of each of the summaries.ResultsParticipants (n = 538) were randomly assigned to one of the summary types. The response of adults with science, science-related, and non-science careers were slightly different, but they show similar trends. All groups performed well on a post-summary test, but participants reported higher perceived understanding when presented with a video or plain language summary (p<0.0025). All groups enjoyed video abstracts the most followed by plain language summaries, and then graphical abstracts and published abstracts. The reported preference for different summary types was generally not correlated to the comprehension of the summaries. Here we show that original abstracts and graphical abstracts are not as successful as video abstracts and plain language summaries at producing comprehension, a feeling of understanding, and enjoyment. Our results indicate the value of relaxing the word counts in the abstract to allow for more plain language or including a plain language summary section along with the abstract.

How to keep up to date with medical information using web‐based resources: a systematised review and narrative synthesis

“…A recent survey reported that alerts were one of the most preferred update mechanisms for scientists (Bredbenner & Simon, 2019). However, users should be aware of an overwhelming number of alerts.…”

“…However, these conclusions should be considered with caution as there were important study limitations (risk of sampling bias, evaluation of knowledge gain through a small number of question items). A recent survey reported that alerts were one of the most preferred update mechanisms for scientists (Bredbenner & Simon, 2019). However, users should be aware of an overwhelming number of alerts.…”

The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models

“…Recognizing the need to adapt reports of scientific findings to non-expert audiences, including scientists working in other fields of research, many journals, such as eLife, Autism Research, Functional Ecology, Cell, and Science, have started offering plain-language summaries or graphical abstracts and video abstracts (eLife, 2019;Shailes, 2017). As another recent study established, from amongst traditional abstracts, graphical abstracts, video abstracts, and plain-language summaries, the latter two most successfully produced comprehension, a feeling of understanding, and enjoyment (Bredbenner & Simon, 2019). In view of all of the above, it is perhaps not very surprising that a dedicated platform, Kudos (www.growkudos.com/), has been operating since 2014 with the express aim of helping scholars communicate their research in plain language as a means of broadening their reach and impact.…”

Plain‐language summaries: An essential component to promote knowledge translation

“…Plain‐language summary (PLS) is a synopsis of research findings written in an easily understandable way, so that even lay audience would grasp the content 1 . It might be science journalists, healthcare practitioners, academic professionals, policymakers or the general public; they need to understand and engage with the research.…”