ArticlePloS one2026
What do editors of medical journals think about opportunities and barriers to advancement in the publication of plain language summaries? A qualitative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlain language summaries (PLSs) are short summaries of research articles written for a diverse audience, using plain, easy-to-understand language. Although they have been adopted by many health and medical journals, we have a limited understanding of how they are viewed by journal editors. This remains an important gap because of the role journal editors play in the decision-making process for the publication, implementation, and dissemination of PLSs. To address this, the aims of this qualitative study were to: (a) gain a better understanding of the decision-making process that governs the publication of PLSs at the journal and publishing group levels; (b) explore attitudes and perspectives of journal editors towards PLSs; and (c) identify and explore barriers and facilitators to the implementation of PLSs by journals and journal publishers. METHODS AND
findingsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 participants who represented 23 journals and eight publishers/publishing groups. Using reflexive thematic analysis, we developed five themes: (1) When good intentions clash with practical realities; (2) Whose job is it anyway?; (3) A cautiously optimistic approach to support from artificial intelligence (AI); (4) Blind spots and broken loops; (5) A 'One size fits all' approach doesn't work: the need for novelty. Discussions with participants highlighted the differing approaches taken by journals to prioritising PLSs, often governed by barriers such as resource allocation and the need for standardisation within publishing groups. While many participants showed initiative to overcome barriers, often in their own time, they noted challenges associated with a lack of PLS readership data and role clarity in the PLS production and dissemination pipeline. Opinions were mixed on the integration of AI and the integration of alternate formats for PLSs.
conclusionsBy embracing technology such as artificial intelligence, integrating innovative formats and exploring distribution channels including via consumer groups and social media, journal publishers can help elevate and expand the reach of PLSs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.