- \n
- Publication extenders make articles more accessible, increase citations, and aid reader comprehension.<\/li>\n
- Lack of adoption by publishers or and difficulty finding publication extenders on journal platforms highlights opportunities for improvements.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/AdobeStock_1394632012.jpeg?resize=1024%2C771&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nPublication extenders, such as plain-language summaries (PLSs<\/a>), infographics<\/a>, and video abstracts, have become incredibly useful tools for reaching a wider audience, enhancing the impact of research. Yet evidence supporting their use has not been readily available. To address this, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP<\/a>) Digital\/Visual Communications Committee developed the Publication Extenders Evidence Resource<\/a>. In an article<\/a> published in The MAP Newsletter<\/a>, Kelly Soldavin and colleagues discuss key findings, demonstrating the value of publication extenders.<\/p>\n
Publication extenders improve article metrics<\/strong><\/p>\n
Publication extenders can lead to increased downloads, Altmetric scores, and citations. The authors point to studies that found:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Articles with video abstracts had a 1.206 higher citation rate than those without.<\/li>\n
- 62% of articles with a text-based PLS were downloaded significantly more than similar articles without PLSs.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Audience preferences for publication extenders vary<\/strong><\/p>\n
The authors highlight several studies assessing the format of publication extenders preferred by different groups. Patients report that publication extenders, and specifically PLSs with plain text and infographics, make articles easier to understand. On the other hand, some health care professionals prefer plain-text PLSs over graphical formats.<\/p>\n
Uptake of publication extenders could be improved<\/strong><\/p>\n
\n
\u201cWhile the benefits of publication extenders are clear, uptake by authors and journals is low.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
While the benefits of publication extenders are clear, uptake by authors and journals is generally low: one study found only 11 of 30 haematology journals allowed PLSs. Even when publication extenders are used, they are often difficult to find on journal platforms.<\/p>\n
Looking to the future<\/strong><\/p>\n
The authors conclude that research consistently shows publication extenders enhance the impact of research, making it more accessible across a wide audience. Publishers should consider ways to make publication extenders more discoverable, while authors and publication planning professionals should consider platforms other than those offered by journals to improve the accessibility of digital content.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Aspirations_Bobby-Clark_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n