The Importance of Lay Summaries for Improving Science Communication.

Communicating science to the general public could sometimes be problematic partly because the language used in scientific writing was difficult to understand for people outside the scientific community. Against this backdrop, lay summaries were introduced to the research community. Lay summaries are short, non-technical summaries of scientific articles that are aimed at a lay audience. Despite the increasing attention on the roles that lay summaries play in scientific communication, it remains unclear whether they are comprehensible to the lay audience. To address the foregoing concerns, this study examines the readability of lay summaries published in Autism Research. It was found that lay summaries were more readable than traditional abstracts but were not easy enough to read for the lay audience. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

Lay summaries exist to bridge the gap that separates the scientific community from the general public. To foster improved science communication, this study examined the overall quality and readability of published lay summaries across peer-reviewed journals. We obtained 200 lay summaries published in four science journals: eLife, PLOS Medicine, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS), and the Journal of Hepatology. Over 900 students across three semesters participated as raters of each summary using a rubric developed to assess the overall quality, accuracy, and accessibility of lay summaries across these journals. The Flesch Reading Ease formula was used to determine the readability of the highest and lowest scoring summaries from each journal. eLife and the Journal of Hepatology had the highest and lowest mean scores for overall quality of 15.6 and 11.7 out of 20, respectively. There were statistically significant differences in accuracy and accessibility found across all journals (p<0.0001). eLife had the highest scoring lay summary for readability. The differences in and lack of consistent scoring across journals with the rubric indicate that deficits exist in the overall quality and readability of published lay summaries. These findings may support the development of guidelines that incorporate elements of the rubric used to write effective lay summaries.