{"id":672,"date":"2017-11-30T10:24:26","date_gmt":"2017-11-30T10:24:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/lay-summaries-are-not-just-for-researchers-they-are-for-funders-too\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:38:40","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:38:40","slug":"lay-summaries-are-not-just-for-researchers-they-are-for-funders-too","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/lay-summaries-are-not-just-for-researchers-they-are-for-funders-too","title":{"rendered":"Lay summaries are not just for researchers, they are for funders, too"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

But if we want to take the open agenda to its logical conclusion we must do more.\u00a0It is not enough to give everyone access to every research paper and leave it at that: we have to make research open in other ways. We have to make an effort to communicate with readers outside the research community; we have to speak to pupils and teachers, to healthcare professionals and patients (and their families), to anyone and everyone who is interested in science and research. And we have to speak to them in their language, in the language of the news media and Wikipedia. We have to speak to them in plain language, not in the formal and formulaic prose found in most research papers; and we have to use verbs, not nouns, and to avoid words like characterization and facilitation that \u2013 while much loved and used by scientists \u2013 can stop a sentence or article dead in its tracks.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Peter Rodgers –\u00a0Plain-language Summaries of Research: Writing for different readers<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

The statement that stood out for me from these powerful words by\u00a0Rodgers\u00a0was \u201cWe have to make an effort to communicate with readers outside the research community<\/em>\u201d\u00a0because\u00a0it made me reflect that this is perhaps\u00a0the need of the hour in scholarly publishing. A bulk of R&D funding comes from taxpayer money. There\u00a0 is a need to show evidence of real-world impact to justify allotment of R&D budgets. But the current practice of showing such evidence is nascent and\/or poorly shaped. Mostly, academic works are drafted and presented by researchers for consumption by other researchers like them, with little percolation across the boundaries of scientific discipline, user community (researcher to funder), and paywalls of course (closed access). Explaining dense, complex science in easy-to-understand, jargon-light language is one way to\u00a0 break down some of these barriers. This post delves into how such widely digestible distillations of scientific research, let\u2019s call them lay summaries, can help achieve the goal of science communication without boundaries.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n

Over the last few years, different pockets in the scholarly publishing industry have been rallying for the cause of communicating science\u00a0beyond the ivory tower of academia with an\u00a0energized focus on showing real-world research impact.\u00a0One of the motivations behind\u00a0these efforts\u00a0is the realization\u00a0that\u00a0there is little point in undertaking years of painstaking work to make a scientific discovery that is exposed to just one community (academic) and even so remains hidden behind paywalls and technical jargon.\u00a0Open access publishing, data sharing, research promotion, and alternative modes of\u00a0presenting\u00a0scientific findings are some of the direct\u00a0outcomes of these\u00a0efforts\u00a0that are gradually but steadily gaining momentum.\u00a0Of these, the\u00a0 first two, i.e., open access\u00a0publishing and data sharing, have\u00a0been widely discussed, and in\u00a0some cases\u00a0advocated,\u00a0as effective means to disseminate research findings despite the complexities they involve (for example, here<\/a>, here<\/a>, and here<\/a>).\u00a0All this is being done to increase transparency in scholarly publishing and to convey the impact of research findings to the public.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Ideologically speaking, this stance is progressive, one that embraces the need to\u00a0ensure transparency and inclusion. But a larger question still looms: Is this enough? Is this all we need to do to ensure\u00a0that research findings\u00a0reach the scientific and non-scientific community alike? I\u00a0would like to revisit\u00a0Rodgers’\u00a0words as a response to this:\u00a0<\/p>\n

\n

It is not enough to give everyone access to every research paper and leave it at that: we have to make research open in other ways. We have to make an effort to communicate with readers outside the research community.<\/em>\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This indicates that open\u00a0access is not enough; we need to\u00a0make sure that people outside the\u00a0research\u00a0community can not only access but also understand scientific research. So while we\u00a0are busy lifting paywalls and making\u00a0research data freely and easily accessible, we need to\u00a0remember\u00a0that a\u00a0majority of\u00a0research output, almost all of it, is written by<\/em> researchers for<\/em> researchers. None of it is meant for the non-scientific community – the lay reader – who is motivated to know more about the latest breakthroughs in the treatment of a particular disease, for example, or about techniques that help\u00a0reduce\u00a0our carbon footprint. What I am trying to say is that the lay reader might be as interested in scientific advances as the researcher. Fortunately, the scholarly community is already working on ways to fill this gap, and this\u00a0is where\u00a0lay summaries\u00a0step in.\u00a0Lay summaries are being increasingly adopted as an effective way of breaking down complex research findings such that they\u00a0can be easily comprehended by non-scientific\u00a0audiences.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

According to the US’\u00a0Plain Writing Act of 2010<\/a>,\u00a0\u2018The term \u2018\u2018plain writing\u2019\u2019 means writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience.\u2019 Thus, lay summaries, also\u00a0referred to\u00a0as plain language summaries,\u00a0are primarily intended for audiences who do not have the same level of knowledge as the researchers performing the study.\u00a0The readers of lay summaries could be taxpayers, journalists healthcare providers, patients, professionals in fields related to the research area, policymakers, or decision makers in funding bodies and grant application committees.\u00a0Research areas\u00a0in which lay summaries could\u00a0have the greatest impact include (but are\u00a0not restricted to) medicine,\u00a0healthcare, public health, psychology, disaster science, environmental\u00a0science,\u00a0climate\u00a0change, finance, and law.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Lay summaries are gaining importance as a\u00a0tool\u00a0to communicate and disseminate research and its\u00a0impact.\u00a0Today, more and more funders are\u00a0demanding inclusion of lay summaries at different stages of\u00a0research\u00a0and its publication.\u00a0Many grant committees\u00a0require researchers to submit a plain language summary of their proposed project, along with an indication of the impact they\u00a0believe it would have.\u00a0For example, the\u00a0Edward Mallinckrodt, Jr. Foundation Award Program,\u00a0clearly states that\u00a0grant applicants must include a lay summary<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0their\u00a0submission\u00a0package. A Wellcome Trust sample grant application form includes\u00a0a separate field for a plain language summary<\/a> which applicants are expected to fill in. Several organizations also host a\u00a0wealth of\u00a0information about plain language summaries.\u00a0The Campbell Collaboration makes\u00a0plain language summaries of all its systematic reviews freely available<\/a>, in an attempt to help people “use and interpret research evidence.”\u00a0The National Institutes for Health has\u00a0a dedicated section<\/a>\u00a0that contains resources on plain language. This list runs long and it is not uncommon for funders to make these summaries freely available. But why are funders taking an interest in lay summaries? How\u00a0do they stand to\u00a0benefit?\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

While there are some obvious\u00a0benefits of using lay summaries for researchers and readers, funders, too, have a lot to\u00a0gain.<\/p>\n