Lay summaries needed to enhance science communication
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
It has been proposed that putting the practical significance of research findings via PLSs into context may improve the public perception and impact of science.
“It has been proposed that putting the practical significance of research findings via PLSs into context may improve the public perception and impact of science (e.g., Kuehne & Olden, 2015).”
From A Randomized Controlled Study on the Effectiveness of Plain Language Summaries of Psychological Meta-Analyses (2025) · cites this paper as Kuehne & Olden, 2015
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
Do Altmetrics Work? Twitter and Ten Other Social Web Services
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0064841 · Cited by 907 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Liang X, et al. (2014) Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments.Journalism Mass Commun Q 91(4):772-791.
- Ecklund EH, James SA, Lincoln AE (2012) How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach.PLOS ONE 7(5):e36240.
- Peters HP, et al. (2008) Science communication.Interactions with the mass media.Science 321(5886):204-205.
- 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
Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines and empirical research
Stoll, M., Kerwer, M., Lieb, K., & Chasiotis, A. (2022) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0268789 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Easily readable? Examining the readability of lay summaries published in <i>Autism Research</i>
Wen, J., He, S., & Yi, L. (2023) · Autism Research · doi:10.1002/aur.2917 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Kerwer, M., Jonas, M., Stoll, M., Benz, G., & Chasiotis, A. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Psychologie · doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000570 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kuehne, L. M., & Olden, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2015-03-24
- Volume
- 112
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3585-3586
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC4378425
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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