Skip to main content
Search
Search
Advanced Search
Skip main navigation

Contents:

What are plain language summaries?

Plain language summaries (PLS) allow authors to explain articles in a non-technical way, making them more accessible to a range of stakeholders, including the general public, patients, patient advocates, non-specialist clinicians, health policymakers, HTA and regulatory bodies, and a range of healthcare professionals. A recent overview of the types and benefits of PLS to foster increased diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility in scholarly publishing can be found here:

And two Editorials published on our partner website, The Evidence Base, outlining the benefits of PLS in HEOR and HTA research can be found here:

Plain language options

Becaris journals provide several plain language options for authors. All types of PLS are peer reviewed prior to acceptance for publication.

Plain language summary abstract

***Please note, from 2025 all new original research submissions (including Meta-Analyses, Methodologies, Protocols, Research Articles and Short Reports) must include a PLS abstract.***

Abstract PLS are structured, text-only summaries (120–250 words in length) that provide a summary of the article abstract written in plain language; extra information should only be included for context. Abstract PLS are featured within the article following the main abstract.

For an example PLS, please see here.

Abstract PLS should be structured as follows: 

  • Plain language version of the article title
  • Article summary as a series of questions, such as:
    • What is this article about?
    • What were the results? / What methodology/protocol is described?
    • What do the results mean? / Why is this important?

Please note, no references should be cited in the PLS.

For authors who are looking for professional support in creating an attractive PLS that accurately summarizes their article and meets the journal guidelines may benefit from our author services. To learn more, click here.

Supplementary plain language summary 

Becaris journals also publish longer form PLS that contain multiple pages and provide a much more detailed summary of the article. They can be submitted as a supplementary materials file alongside any article. Supplementary PLS can include text, graphics, and multimedia content.

For an example supplementary PLS, please see here.

Plain Language Summary of Publication (PLSP) 

Plain Language Summary of Publication articles (PLSPs) are standalone articles published with their own unique DOI and are thus fully citable. They are plain language, visually enriched articles that provide a summary of a key publication (or group of related publications) originally published in a Becaris journal or another peer-reviewed journal.

Becaris journals publish PLSPs as a standalone article type. For more details about submitting a standalone PLSP, please contact Joanne Walker.

The following PLSPs have been published by Becaris Publishing:

What are the tips for writing a plain language summary?

Numerous tools and resources are available to help authors write a PLS. Below are some of our top resources available:

Reviewer Guidelines for PLSPs

Why do PLSPs need to be reviewed?

PLSPs are summaries of articles originally published in a Becaris journal or a journal from another publisher. The original article(s) will have already undergone full peer review prior to publication to ensure the scientific accuracy of the information presented, relevance to the journal and quality of the article.

PLSPs are reviewed for readability and understanding, adherence to plain language principles and to ensure the PLSP is an accurate reflection of the original article(s).

PLSPs are reviewed by others, including healthcare professionals, patients, patient advocates and others with expertise in developing material specifically intended for a patient/general public audience. All reviewers of PLSPs are offered an honorarium payable upon completion of their review.

What happens after a PLSP is reviewed?

By taking part in the review of a PLSP, reviewers contribute to the quality of the published PLSP as the feedback generated through this review helps the authors of the PLSP improve their work.

The Journal Editor will use the comments provided by an article’s peer reviewers, along with their own assessment, to decide how to proceed with an article. The options the Journal Editor has once peer review is complete are:

  • Accept the article for publication as it is
  • Return the article to the authors so they can complete minor or major revisions based on the peer reviewer and Editor feedback
  • Reject the article for publication

Becaris journals employ a double-anonymized peer review system. This means that reviewers are not informed of the author(s) identity, nor are authors provided with the identities of the reviewers who have assessed their work. Your comments on this manuscript are sent anonymously to the author(s) via the Journal Editor and held in strict confidence. You are also welcome to provide confidential comments to the Editor that will not be forwarded to the authors, should you wish to do so.

Completing your review of a PLSP

When the Journal Editor receives an article submission, it will first undergo initial internal quality review by the Journal Editor (e.g., ensuring the submission is within-scope, is novel, has been clearly written, meets our quality criteria, and includes any relevant disclosures and ethical approval information). Articles deemed suitable for consideration will then proceed to external, double-anonymized peer review.

Responding to an invitation to review a PLSP

The Journal Editor will identify individuals they believe are suitable to assess the article. When you receive such an invitation, please consider:

  • Will the suggested deadline be suitable for you?
    • If not, the Journal Editor may be able to extend this, so do get in touch to discuss this with them if you are interested in reviewing
    • In addition, if a delay occurs when completing your review, or if you become unable to complete the review after acceptance, do let the Journal Editor know so they can either extend your deadline or identify a new reviewer to replace you
  • Is the topic of the article within your area of expertise/interest?
  • Do you have any potential conflicts of interest with the content?
    • A conflict of interest may prevent you from conducting an unbiased review of the article, so this should be brought to the attention of the Journal Editor

If you are unable to accept an invitation to review, it is helpful to make suggestions for alternative reviewers if you can.

Accessing the PLSP

Once you accept an invitation to review a PLSP you will receive the PLSP, a copy of the original article(s) on which the PLSP is based and these guidelines.

As a first step, you should read through the article, including any supplementary files. Please feel free to contact the Journal Editor at any time if you have a question regarding your review.

Confidentiality

It is important that the confidentiality of the peer review process is respected. Reviewers are expected to keep all manuscript files confidential; should you wish to consult with another individual (e.g., a colleague or early-career researcher you are supervising) when completing your review, please let the Journal Editor know before you do so. Please note that this includes uploading the manuscript to software or other artificial intelligence (AI)-based technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured – please see further notes on the use of AI below.

Points to consider when reviewing the PLSP

The main points for you to consider when reviewing the article are as follows:

  1. Is the title of the appropriate for this article and does it clearly indicate what the PLSP is about?
    • If not, can you suggest a better title?
      • Please note that we recommend all PLSPs contain ‘plain language summary’ in the title
  2. Does the ‘Summary’ section at the beginning of the PLSP provide an accurate overview of the article?
    • All PLSPs must contact a ‘Summary’ section as this is used on various databases when indexing the PLSP
    • We recommend that author provide a structure summary section, with the text separated by headings, to help readers understand the content easier
  3. Does the PLSP clearly identify:
    • The original publication the authors are summarizing?
    • The type of information the authors are summarizing? Is it a clinical trial, a survey of patients, something else?
    • The disease/condition being studied?
    • The drug/device/treatment being studied?
    • Whether this drug/device/treatment is already in use, or still being tested (i.e., the stage of the research)?
    • The group of patients that have been included in the study (adults, children, people with early or more advanced conditions, etc.)?
  4. If the PLSP is summarizing a previously published article, does it:
    • Accurately reflect the original publication?
    • Is the data all correct?
    • Is there any data that you feel should be added?
  5. In general, was the language used in the PLSP clear? Were there any words or phrases that you weren’t familiar with that should be explained or changed?
  6. Does the PLSP follow plain language principles such as:
    • Use of short concise sentences
    • Written in the active voice (e.g., “The researchers conducted a study to look at how effective…” instead of “A study was conducted by researchers to look at how effective…”)?
    • Use of simplified terms and avoiding jargon, complex terminology, or convoluted sentences
    • Use of headings, subheadings, bullet points, and other formatting tools to make the content easy to navigate and understand
    • Definition terms where needed and use of examples or visuals to clarify complex concepts
  7. Were any pictures/diagrams in the PLSP clear and understandable?
    • If not, do you have any suggestions for new images to be added?
    • Could any of the data be interpreted differently (for instance if a bar chart is included can this be represented with icons instead?)

Providing comments

Please provide as much detail as possible when considering the points above. You can provide a separate word file with your feedback, numbering your comments, and referring to page/line numbers where possible. Alternatively, please feel free to annotate the Word or PDF file directly, making any comments where necessary. Please ensure the comments you add are anonymous.

If you have any confidential points to raise for the attention of the Editor, please list these separately. Comments on this nature may include, any ethical concerns, issues related to plagiarism or incorrect data interpretation.

Artificial intelligence-assisted technologies

AI-assisted technologies should not be used to facilitate peer review without first seeking permission for the intended use from the Journal Editor.

Where permission for use is granted, Becaris journals follow the recommendations of the ICMJE and the 'WAME Recommendations on Chatbots and Generative Artificial Intelligence in Relation to Scholarly Publications', including that:

  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript (as outlined above), which may prohibit the uploading of the manuscript to software or other AI technologies where confidentiality cannot be assured
  • Reviewers should disclose to journals if and how AI technology is being used to facilitate their review
  • Reviewers should be aware that AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased
  • Reviewers are responsible for any content and/or citations generated by AI technology

Further review

While some articles might be accepted for publication after undergoing one round of peer review, some may be subject to further rounds of review. As such, you may be invited to look again at a paper that you originally reviewed, and which has now been revised. In these cases, you will be asked to comment on whether the authors have addressed your original concerns to your satisfaction, or whether further revision is required.