Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts


Autoři: Kate Bredbenner aff001;  Sanford M. Simon aff001
Působiště autorů: Lab of Cellular Biophysics, Rockefeller University, New York, New York, United States of America aff001
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224697

Souhrn

Background

Journals are trying to make their papers more accessible by creating a variety of research summaries including graphical abstracts, video abstracts, and plain language summaries. It is unknown if individuals with science, science-related, or non-science careers prefer different summaries, which approach is most effective, or even what criteria should be used for judging which approach is most effective. A survey was created to address this gap in our knowledge. Two papers from Nature on similar research topics were chosen, and different kinds of research summaries were created for each one. Questions to measure comprehension of the research, as well as self-evaluation of enjoyment of the summary, perceived understanding after viewing the summary, and the desire for more updates of that summary type were asked to determine the relative merits of each of the summaries.

Results

Participants (n = 538) were randomly assigned to one of the summary types. The response of adults with science, science-related, and non-science careers were slightly different, but they show similar trends. All groups performed well on a post-summary test, but participants reported higher perceived understanding when presented with a video or plain language summary (p<0.0025). All groups enjoyed video abstracts the most followed by plain language summaries, and then graphical abstracts and published abstracts. The reported preference for different summary types was generally not correlated to the comprehension of the summaries. Here we show that original abstracts and graphical abstracts are not as successful as video abstracts and plain language summaries at producing comprehension, a feeling of understanding, and enjoyment. Our results indicate the value of relaxing the word counts in the abstract to allow for more plain language or including a plain language summary section along with the abstract.

Klíčová slova:

Careers – Careers in research – HIV-1 – Language – Scientific publishing – Scientists – Social media – Survey research


Zdroje

1. State of Science Index Survey [Internet]. 3M. 2019. https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/state-of-science-index-survey/interactive-3m-state-of-science-survey/

2. King SR, Pewsey E, Shailes S. Plain-language Summaries of Research: An inside guide to eLife digests. eLife [Internet]. 2017; https://elifesciences.org/articles/25410

3. Plain language summaries: Journals and other scientific organizations. eLife [Internet]. 2019; https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xqOMlzSI2rqxe6Eb3SZRRxmckXVXYACZAwbg3no4ZuI/edit#gid=0

4. McIlwain C, Santesso N, Simi S, Napoli M, Lasserson T, Welsh E, et al. Cochrane Standards for preparing Plain Language Summaries [Internet]. [cited 2019 Jul 12]. https://training.cochrane.org/resource/cochrane-standards-preparing-plain-language-summaries

5. Enard W, Svante P. Probing the evolution of human language in a model organism [Internet]. Cell Press; 2009. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k27DfgKGVp8

6. Cell Press Graphical Abstract Guidelines. Cell Press [Internet]. 2019; https://www.cell.com/pb/assets/raw/shared/figureguidelines/GA_guide.pdf

7. Rodríguez Estrada FC, Davis LS. Improving Visual Communication of Science Through the Incorporation of Graphic Design Theories and Practices Into Science Communication. Sci Commun. 2015;37(1):140–8.

8. Newman EJ, Schwarz N. Good Sound, Good Research: How Audio Quality Influences Perceptions of the Research and Researcher. Sci Commun. 2018;40(2):246–57.

9. Rodgers P. Plain-language Summaries of Research: Writing for different readers. eLife [Internet]. 2017 Mar; https://elifesciences.org/articles/25408

10. Gardiner A, Sullivan M, Grand A. Who Are You Writing for? Differences in Response to Blog Design Between Scientists and Nonscientists. Sci Commun. 2018;40(1):109–23.

11. Weber R, Dinc S, Williams M. Americans’ Support for NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope: Effects of Traditional Texts Compared to Interactive Media. Sci Commun. 2016;38(5):601–25.

12. Bucchi M, Saracino B. “Visual Science Literacy”: Images and Public Understanding of Science in the Digital Age. Sci Commun. 2016;38(6):812–9.

13. Plain-language Summaries: Results of the 2016 eLife digest reader survey. Inside eLife [Internet]. 2017 Mar; https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/19c97b89/plain-language-summaries-results-of-the-2016-elife-digest-reader-survey

14. Cohn LB, Da Silva IT, Valieris R, Huang AS, Lorenzi JCC, Cohen YZ, et al. Clonal CD4+ T cells in the HIV-1 latent reservoir display a distinct gene profile upon reactivation. Nat Med [Internet]. 2018;24(5):604–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0017-7 29686423

15. Takata MA, Gonçalves-Carneiro D, Zang TM, Soll SJ, York A, Blanco-Melo D, et al. CG dinucleotide suppression enables antiviral defence targeting non-self RNA. Nature [Internet]. 2017;550(7674):124–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature24039 28953888

16. Plain-language Summaries: How to write an eLife digest. Inside eLife [Internet]. 2017 Mar; https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/85518309/plain-language-summaries-how-to-write-an-elife-digest

17. Carvalho FA, Elkins MR, Franco MR, Pinto RZ. Are plain-language summaries included in published reports of evidence about physiotherapy interventions ? Analysis of 4421 randomised trials, systematic reviews and guidelines on the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Physiotherapy [Internet]. 2019;105(3):354–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physio.2018.11.003 30876718

18. Video Abstract Guidelines [Internet]. Cell Press. 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 10]. https://www.cell.com/video-abstract-guidelines

19. Wickline M. Coblis—Color Blindness Simulator [Internet]. 2000. https://www.color-blindness.com/coblis-color-blindness-simulator/

20. Stangroom J. Mann-Whitney U Test Calculator [Internet]. Social Science Statistics. https://www.socscistatistics.com/tests/mannwhitney/default2.aspx

21. Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019 [Internet]. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 11]. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf19304/digest/occupation#science-and-engineering-occupations

22. Barnfield S, Pitts AC, Kalaria R, Allan L, Tullo E. “Is all the stuff about neurons necessary?” The development of lay summaries to disseminate findings from the Newcastle Cognitive Function after Stroke (COGFAST) study. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3(1):1–14.

23. Kirkpatrick E, Gaisford W, Williams E, Brindley E, Tembo D, Wright D. Understanding Plain English summaries. A comparison of two approaches to improve the quality of Plain English summaries in research reports. Res Involv Engagem [Internet]. 2017;3(1):17. https://researchinvolvement.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40900-017-0064-0

24. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2019 Jul 10]. https://methods.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/public/uploads/pleacs_2019.pdf

25. Rakedzon T, Segev E, Chapnik N, Yosef R, Baram-Tsabari A. Automatic jargon identifier for scientists engaging with the public and science communication educators. PLoS One. 2017;12(8):e0181742. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181742 28792945


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11