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

Kate Bredbenner · Sanford M. Simon

88 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Publishing and Open Access Academic Writing and Publishing Text Readability and Simplification

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Journals 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. RESULTS: Participants (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.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 88 citations exist upstream.

References

2014Improving Visual Communication of Science Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science Communication

Cited by

2020The changed – and changing – landscape of serials publishing: Review of the literature on emerging models 2023Plain language summaries: Enabling increased diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing 2020Perception about Social Media Use by Rheumatology Journals: Survey among the Attendees of IRACON 2019 2024Ten simple rules for designing graphical abstracts 2023Video abstracts are associated with an increase in research reports citations, views and social attention: a cross-sectional study 2021Visual abstracts do not increase some impact scores more than conventional abstracts of clinical research: A retrospective cohort study 2023The potential for graphical abstracts to enhance science communication 2022Conclusiveness, linguistic characteristics and readability of Cochrane plain language summaries of intervention reviews: a cross-sectional study

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.