A plain language summary explains your research in words that anyone can understand, including people who are not specialists in your field. Patients, policymakers, journalists, students, and family members may all need to know what you found and why it matters, and most of them will not read a technical abstract. A good summary respects those readers: it keeps the science honest while removing the jargon that keeps them out.
Many journals, funders, and health organisations now ask for a plain language summary alongside the scientific abstract, and some publish it next to the article itself. Writing one well is therefore a practical skill, not an optional extra. This guide explains who the summary is for, what it should contain, how to write it in clear language, and how to check it before you submit.
A plain language summary is a short, non-technical account of a research study: what question it asked, what was done, what was found, and what it means. It is usually between 200 and 400 words, written for readers without specialist training. Unlike a scientific abstract, it avoids technical terms, abbreviations, and statistical detail unless each one is explained in ordinary words the first time it appears.
The readers are wider than most researchers expect. They include patients and carers deciding about treatment, teachers and students looking for reliable information, policymakers weighing evidence, journalists reporting a finding, and members of the public who fund research through their taxes. Each of these readers needs the same thing: a faithful account they can actually follow, without having to learn your field first.
A scientific abstract is written for specialists who share your vocabulary and your methods. It can assume knowledge of study designs, outcome measures, and statistical terms, and it is judged partly on precision. A plain language summary is written for everyone else, so its priorities are different: clarity first, then completeness, then brevity. A sentence that is technically exact but unreadable has failed in a plain language summary, however accurate it is.
That difference changes concrete choices. Where an abstract might say that an intervention reduced an outcome with a given hazard ratio, a plain language summary says how many people improved, in plain numbers, and what that change means in everyday life. Where an abstract names a method, a plain language summary describes what actually happened to the people or animals involved. The science stays the same; the language and the level of detail change to fit the reader.
Before drafting, decide who will read your summary and what they most need from it. A summary written for patients considering a treatment should emphasise benefits, harms, and uncertainties in everyday terms. A summary written for policymakers should emphasise the size of the effect and what would have to change for it to matter. Writing for a named reader, rather than for a vague general public, makes every later choice easier, from word choice to length.
Then settle your single main message in one sentence: what did you study, what did you find, and why does it matter? If you cannot state that sentence plainly, the summary is not ready to write, because its argument is not yet clear. Keep that sentence visible while you draft, and cut any material that does not support it. Background that interests specialists but does not help a non-specialist understand the finding belongs in the article, not in the summary.
A reliable structure keeps the summary complete without making it long. Start with the question: what problem did the study address, and why did it matter? One or two sentences of background are enough, written in ordinary language. Then describe what was done: who or what was studied, what was compared, and over what period, without naming techniques a non-specialist would not recognise.
Next, report the findings in plain numbers. Say how many people or animals were involved, what happened in each group, and how large the difference was, using counts and percentages rather than ratios alone. Finish with what the findings mean and what they do not mean: who might benefit, what remains uncertain, and what research should happen next. A summary that reports a benefit without its uncertainty misleads readers just as surely as one that gets a number wrong.
Plain language is not simple thinking; it is careful translation. Prefer short, common words: use instead of utilise, help instead of facilitate, and start instead of commence. Explain every unavoidable technical term the first time it appears, in the same sentence, rather than expecting the reader to look it up. Remove abbreviations unless you spell them out and use them again; a summary scattered with unexplained initials is no longer plain.
Keep sentences short, usually under twenty words, and put one idea in each sentence. Use the active voice where it clarifies who did what: researchers gave participants the treatment reads more clearly than the treatment was administered. For numbers, give absolute figures alongside any comparison: saying that 12 out of 100 people improved, compared with 7 out of 100 without treatment, tells a reader far more than a percentage change alone. Avoid decimal places and relative risks without the underlying counts.
Non-specialist readers trust a summary more, not less, when it states what is uncertain. Say plainly when a study was small, when results apply only to a particular group, or when a finding needs confirmation in larger studies. Phrases such as the results suggest, rather than the results prove, are not evasions; they are accurate descriptions of what most single studies can support, and they protect readers from overconfidence.
Limitations should be stated briefly and concretely, not buried in general language. Instead of writing that further research is needed, say what kind of research is needed and why: for example, that the study included only adults, so its findings may not apply to children, or that follow-up lasted six months, so longer-term effects are unknown. Honest limits also protect you: a reader who later learns of a limitation you disclosed will trust your next summary, while one who discovers a limitation you hid may not.
Consider a technical sentence such as: a randomised controlled trial evaluated the efficacy of a novel intervention in reducing symptom burden among patients with a chronic condition. A plain version might read: researchers tested a new treatment in a study where patients were randomly assigned to receive either the new treatment or the usual care, to see whether it reduced their symptoms. Every technical term has been replaced by what it means in practice, and the sentence still describes the same study.
The same approach works for results. Instead of reporting that the intervention group showed a statistically significant improvement, a plain summary says how many people improved in each group and by how much, in ordinary units. If the difference was small, say so. If some participants experienced side effects, name them in plain words and say how common they were. Readers who understand the size and the trade-offs of a finding can make better decisions than readers given only a verdict that something worked.
The most common mistake is copying sentences from the scientific abstract and changing only a few words. The result reads like a simplified abstract but keeps its structure, its assumptions, and its jargon, and non-specialists still cannot follow it. Write the summary from scratch, from your one-sentence main message, and check each sentence by asking whether a reader outside your field would understand it without help.
Other frequent mistakes include overstating the finding, omitting harms or limitations, and using numbers without context. A summary that says a treatment works, without saying for whom, by how much, or with what side effects, is incomplete even if every word is true. So is a summary that reports a percentage without the number of people behind it. Read the finished summary as a sceptical outsider would: what would you conclude, and is that conclusion the one the study supports?
Test the summary on a real non-specialist reader if you can: a colleague from another field, a family member, or a patient representative. Ask them to explain the study back to you in their own words, and note every point where they hesitate, guess, or go wrong. Those points mark the sentences to rewrite, not the reader's failure. If no reader is available, read the summary aloud; awkward sentences and unexplained terms are easier to hear than to see.
Also check the practical requirements. Many journals and funders set a word limit, a required structure, or a reading-level target for plain language summaries, and some ask you to state funding and conflicts of interest in plain words too. Confirm the requirements before you submit, and keep a copy of the approved summary: it is often reused in press releases, social media posts, and funding reports, and consistency across those uses matters.
Plain language summaries now appear in many places beyond the article itself. Some journals publish them alongside the abstract, some funders require them in final reports, and some health organisations write their own summaries of published studies for patients. The Cochrane Library, for example, publishes plain language summaries with its systematic reviews, written for readers without medical training, and they are among its most-read pages.
That reach is an opportunity. A clear summary can bring your work to clinicians, teachers, journalists, and policymakers who would never read the full paper, and it can shape how your findings are reported. It also carries a responsibility: a summary that oversimplifies or overstates will travel just as widely as an accurate one. Writing it carefully is therefore part of doing the research well, not an afterthought to it.
Use this checklist on the final version, and ask a non-specialist reader to check it with you if possible: the question, the methods, the main findings in plain numbers, and the meaning are all present; every technical term is explained when it first appears; sentences are short and in the active voice where that helps; benefits, harms, and uncertainties are all stated; and the conclusion does not claim more than the study supports. If any item fails, revise that part before submitting.
Finally, remember that plain language is a skill that improves with practice. Compare your summary with published examples in your field, note the sentences that read most clearly, and borrow their techniques rather than their words. Over time, writing plainly becomes faster, and your research becomes accessible to the wider audience whose support, participation, and trust make it possible. For guidance on the full publication process, see our guide on how to publish a research paper and our explainer on open access publishing explained.
| Element | What to include | Plain language tip |
|---|---|---|
| Question | The problem and why it matters | One or two sentences, no jargon |
| Methods | Who was studied and what was compared | Describe what happened, not the technique name |
| Findings | Main results in plain numbers | Counts and percentages, not ratios alone |
| Meaning | Who might benefit and what is uncertain | State limits and next steps briefly |
| Length | Usually 200 to 400 words | Check the journal or funder requirement |
These authoritative external resources explain the standards and tools mentioned in this guide:
What is a plain language summary?
A plain language summary is a short, non-technical account of a research study that explains the question, the methods, the findings, and their meaning in words a non-specialist can understand. It is usually 200 to 400 words long and avoids jargon, abbreviations, and unexplained statistics.
How long should a plain language summary be?
Most journals and funders ask for 200 to 400 words, but the exact limit varies, so always check the instructions for the journal or funder concerned. A summary that exceeds the limit may be returned, while one far below it may omit findings or limitations the reader needs.
Who reads a plain language summary?
Patients, carers, policymakers, journalists, teachers, students, and members of the public read plain language summaries. They need a faithful account of what was studied, what was found, and what it means, without having to learn the specialist vocabulary of the field first.
Should a plain language summary mention limitations?
Yes. State the main limitations briefly and concretely, such as a small study size or a short follow-up period, and say what remains uncertain. Readers trust a summary more when it is honest about uncertainty, and honesty protects them from overconfidence.
Can I copy sentences from my abstract?
No. Copying abstract sentences and changing a few words usually keeps the jargon and the specialist structure, so non-specialists still cannot follow it. Write the summary from scratch, starting from your main message in one plain sentence, and test it on a non-specialist reader.
Where are plain language summaries published?
Some journals publish them alongside the abstract, some funders require them in final reports, and health organisations such as Cochrane publish them with systematic reviews. A clear summary can also be reused in press releases and funding reports, so keep the approved version on file.