Cited by 104Academic Publishing and Open AccessAcademic Writing and PublishingText Readability and Simplification

Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication

Open access
Kuehne, Lauren M., Olden, Julian D.·2015·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

At first blush, the notion of lay summaries seems a simple idea with admirable aims: Scientists write summaries of journal articles emphasizing the broad significance of research in accessible language. However, viewed from an ivory tower that has been besieged by an increasing amount of paperwork, scientists could easily regard lay summaries as just one more hurdle in peer-reviewed publishing, another administrative task to fit into an already busy agenda. But rather than an unrewarding burden, scientists (and journal publishers) should consider widespread adoption of lay summaries—accompanying online publications and made publicly available with traditional abstracts—as a way to increase the visibility, impact, and transparency of scientific research. This is a particularly important undertaking given the changing science media landscape. There are clear professional benefits to increasing visibility of one’s own research through broad communication. Disparate studies show consistent connections between public communication, increased visibility of research, and greater numbers of citations (e.g., refs. 1 and 2). Concerns voiced by scientists that public communication is time-consuming, too difficult, and even professionally risky (3) contrast strongly with research documenting that scientists who engage in public communication enjoy an enhanced reputation among peers, and rate contacts with media as generally positive and beneficial to their careers (2, 4). Furthermore, scientists who engage in public communication tend to be more academically productive; few experience negative career impacts from these activities (5). Journalists also value and cultivate connections with scientists who can communicate clearly and accessibly (6). At best, scientists could view lay summaries as opportunities to contextualize their research and communicate with interested nonspecialists. But regardless, they could serve as building blocks for broad and transparent communication of research. The value of lay summaries increases when considered within the radically changing science media landscape. There is little debate that dissemination of research … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: olden{at}uw.edu. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1500882112

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Liang X, et al. (2014) Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments.Journalism Mass Commun Q 91(4):772-791.
  2. Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach.PLOS ONE 7(5):e36240.
  3. Peters HP, et al. (2008) Science communication.Interactions with the mass media.Science 321(5886):204-205.
  4. Jensen P, Rouquier J-B, Kreimer P, Croissant Y (2008) Scientists who engage with society perform better academically.Sci Public Policy 35(7):527-541.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kuehne, L. M., & Olden, J. D.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2015-03-24
Volume
112
Issue
12
Pages
3585-3586
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2079305245
Cited by
104
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 4
FWCI
24.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • University of Washington
  • School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Text Readability and Simplification
Keywords
lay summaries, science communication, public understanding of science, scholarly publishing, public engagement with research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review