- \n
- Most journals surveyed do not allow authors to submit PLS, often citing a perceived lack of demand from readers or authors.<\/li>\n
- Existing PLS practices are inconsistent in format, peer review processes, and indexing methods.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/AdobeStock_1147929522-1.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nPlain language summaries (PLS) have the power to unlock science for everyone \u2013 so why are they still missing from many medical journals? A recent article<\/a> by Sl\u00e1vka Bar\u00f3nikov\u00e1 and colleagues, published in European Medical Writers Association (EMWA<\/a>)\u2019s journal Medical Writing<\/a><\/em>, presents the results of a survey conducted by Open Pharma<\/a> in 2022\u20132023. The survey explored how journal editors and publishers view the role of PLS in scientific publishing and whether current practices align with Open Pharma\u2019s recommendations<\/a> for clear and accessible research communication.<\/p>\n
\n
73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS, citing reasons such as a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
The 16-question survey gathered responses from 29 individuals across 26 individual journals and 7 publisher portfolios. Here are the main findings:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Most journals do not support PLS submission<\/strong>: 73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS.<\/li>\n
- PLS practices are inconsistent<\/strong>: Among journals that did accept PLS, formats, placement, peer review, and indexing practices varied widely.<\/li>\n
- Peer review and discoverability are limited<\/strong>: Fewer than half of the journals that published PLS peer reviewed them or used appropriate PubMed metatags. Only one journal reported consistent use of the PLS metatag, which is crucial for indexing.<\/li>\n
- Perceived barriers include lack of demand<\/strong>: Common reasons for not accepting PLS included a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources.<\/li>\n
- Most journals recognise the potential for PLS to increase readership<\/strong>: Patients, healthcare professionals, and students were seen as key audiences for PLS.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Despite progress by some publishers, the survey highlights an ongoing need for greater standardisation, more consistent peer review, and improved visibility of PLS. It also revealed that some respondents were unsure of their own journal\u2019s PLS policies, underscoring the need for better internal communication and training.<\/p>\n
The authors urge journals to adopt Open Pharma’s recommendations and strengthen their PLS policies\u00a0to ensure that PLS are accessible, discoverable, and scientifically accurate.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Andrea-Luengas-Martinez_new-byline_2.png?resize=1024%2C124&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n - PLS practices are inconsistent<\/strong>: Among journals that did accept PLS, formats, placement, peer review, and indexing practices varied widely.<\/li>\n
- Most journals do not support PLS submission<\/strong>: 73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS.<\/li>\n