Abstract:Background: Plain language summaries (PLSs) are intended for a non-expert audience in order to make health research accessible and understandable to the public. This is important because most research is written with jargon and at a high reading level. However, there is a high degree of variability in the instructions for writing PLSs, which may impede their usefulness as a tool for communicating health research to the public. Objective: The aim of this scoping review was to conduct a detailed analysis of the author instructions for PLSs provided by leading biomedical and health journals. Method: We screened 534 health journals covering 11 categories selected from the InCites Journal Citation Reports linked to the top 10 non-communicable diseases. We included journals published in English that recommended the inclusion of a PLS (as defined by the National Institute for Health Research) and provided authors with text-based instructions on how it should be written. Two independent reviewers extracted data pertaining to common elements identified in author instructions, such as word count/PLS length, content, structure, purpose, wording to support plain language, and the use of jargon, acronyms and abbreviations. Other aspects of PLSs were recorded, such as the label used (e.g., plain language summary, lay summary, and patient summary), journal publisher, consumer involvement and whether the PLS is optional or mandatory. We recorded the frequency of each element and qualitative details of specific instructions. A consumer representative provided ongoing and iterative feedback on the methods, results, and reporting of this study RESULTS: Despite reviewing 534 journals across 10 non-communicable disease areas and 11 journal categories, we found only 27 (5.1%) contained text-based instructions for PLS. Of the 27 journals included in this review, most (70%) did not require a PLS. Approximately 70% of journals with PLS instructions included advice about the use of jargon, abbreviations, and acronyms. Only one journal recommended the use of a readability tool, however five noted that the reading level of the audience or readability of the PLS should be considered. Author instructions were highly heterogeneous between journals. There was inconsistency regarding the word count/PLS length (e.g., between 100 and 850 words), structure (e.g., paragraphs or bullet points), and varying levels of detail for other elements in the instructions. Although only one journal recommended consumer involvement in the development of PLSs, many recommended authors consult those who are not an expert in their field to review their summary prior to submission. Conclusion: The development of consistent author instructions could enhance the effectiveness and use of PLSs. Such instructions should be developed with consumers to ensure they met the needs of a lay non-expert audience.

Three recommended inclusive language guidelines for scholarly publishing: Words matter

Evaluation of Author Instructions for Inclusive Language Guidance in Highly Cited English Language Medical Journals

Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies

Language Barriers in Organismal Biology: What Can Journals Do Better?

Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia

Language Matters: Exploring Preferred Terms for Diverse Populations

Gender inclusivity of ophthalmology journal submission guidelines and associated research metrics

Recent Issues in Medical Journal Publishing and Editing Policies: Adoption of Artificial Intelligence, Preprints, Open Peer Review, Model Text Recycling Policies, Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing 4th Version, and Country Names in Titles

Developing and conducting a language inclusivity assessment on a health science library's website, LibGuides, and signage

Inclusive language and environment to welcome lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual+ patients

Artificial Intelligence: Impact and Challenges to Authors, Journals and Medical Publishing

Inclusivity in Large Language Models: Personality Traits and Gender Bias in Scientific Abstracts

Improving the biomedical research literature: insights from authors' editors can help journal editors define and refine their core competencies

American Psychological Association's recommendation on the use of the terms "White" or "European": Reply to Moffitt and Juang (2024).

Guiding principles and proposed classification system for the responsible adoption of artificial intelligence in scientific writing in medicine

Citation bias, diversity, and ethics

Ten simple rules to make your publication look better

Publishing in English or Chinese: a qualitative analysis of Chinese researchers' academic language choice

What Author Instructions Do Health Journals Provide for Writing Plain Language Summaries? A Scoping Review

Promoting an open research culture

Ten simple rules for pushing boundaries of inclusion at academic events