Where are biomedical research plain‐language summaries?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Plain‐language summaries (PLS) are being heralded as a tool to improve communication of scientific research to lay audiences and time‐poor or nonspecialist healthcare professionals. However, this relies on PLS being intuitively located and accessible. This research investigated the “discoverability” of PLS in biomedical journals. METHODS: The eLIFE list of journals/organizations that produce PLS was consulted on July 12, 2018, for biomedical journals (based on title). Internet research, primarily focusing on information provided by the journal websites, explored PLS terminology (what do the journals call PLS), requirements (what articles are PLS generated for, who writes/reviews them, and at what stage), and location and sharing mechanisms (where/how the PLS are made available, are they free to access, and are they visible on PubMed). RESULTS: The methodology identified 10 journals from distinct publishers, plus eLIFE itself (N = 11). Impact factors ranged from 3.768 to 17.581. Nine different terms were used to describe PLS. Most of the journals (8/11) required PLS for at least all research articles. Authors were responsible for writing PLS in 9/11 cases. Seven journals required PLS on article submission; of the other four, one required PLS at revision and three on acceptance. The location/sharing mechanism for PLS varied: within articles, alongside articles (separate tab/link), and/or on separate platforms (eg, social media, dedicated website). PLS were freely available when they were published with articles; however, PLS were only included within conventional abstracts on PubMed for 2/11 journals. CONCLUSION: Across the few biomedical journals producing PLS, our research suggests there is wide variation in terminology, location, sharing mechanisms, and PubMed visibility. We advocate a more consistent approach to ensure that PLS have appropriate prominence and can be easily found by their intended audiences.