Cover not available

In:Corpora and Rhetorically Informed Text Analysis: The diverse applications of DocuScope
Edited by David West Brown and Danielle Zawodny Wetzel
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 109] 2023
► pp. 214–238

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

From technical reporter to personal guide

A comparison of plain language summaries
and abstracts in scientific journals

 | Carnegie Mellon University in Qatar
Published online: 29 June 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.109.10dre
Abstract
Plain language summaries increasingly serve as a strategy to make scientific research accessible to wide audiences. However, authors often know little about plain language audiences or their goals, so the rhetorical situation of this emerging genre remains unstable and guidance for authors remains fraught. To better understand these summaries, this chapter uses a DocuScope analysis coupled with close reading to compare a corpus of 150 AGU/Wiley Earth and Space journal abstracts with their plain language counterparts. The study yields six areas of significant difference, including less detailed information and more metadiscourse, first-person references, and language of inquiry. These differences collectively reveal the way authors rhetorically shift from the role of technical reporter to personal guide to readers. The chapter concludes with two recommendations for crafting and conceptualizing plain language summaries.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Background: The plain language movement and research
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Corpus selection
    • 3.2DocuScope analysis and close reading
  • 4.Findings and analysis
    • 4.1Academic terms
    • 4.2Information exposition
    • 4.3First person
    • 4.4Inquiry
    • 4.5Metadiscourse
    • 4.6Strategic positive
  • 5.Discussion
    • 5.1Stabilizing the rhetorical situation of summaries and conceptualizing the author’s role as guide
    • 5.2Limitations and future directions
  • 6.Chapter takeaways
  • References
  • Appendix
References (35)
References
Alvin, L. P. (2014). The passive voice in scientific writing. The current norm in science journals. Journal of Science Communication, 13(1), 1–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
American Geophysical Union. (2020a). Creating plain language summaries. Retrieved on 26 January 2023 from [URL]
. (2020b). Plain language summaries for AGU journals. Retrieved on 26 January 2023 from [URL]
. (2020c). Science communicators: Avoiding jargon. Retrieved on 26 January 2023 from [URL]
Bredbenner, K., & Simon, S. (2019). Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts. PLoS ONE, 14(11). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carvalho, F. A., Elkins, M. R., Franco, M. R., & Pinto, R. Z. (2019). 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, 105(3), 354–361. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Center for Plain Language (2019). Five steps to plain language. Retrieved on 26 January 2023 from [URL]
Cheung, I. W. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 448–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fitzgibbon, H., King, K., Piano, C., Wilk, C., & Gaskarth, M. (2020). Where are biomedical research plain-language summaries? Health Science Reports, 3(3), e75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gledhill, C., Martikainen, H., Mestivier, A., & Zimina-Poirot, M. (2019). Towards a linguistic definition of ‘simplified medical English’: Applying textometric analysis to Cochrane medical abstracts and their plain language versions. LCM-La Collana/The Series (pp. 91–114). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glenton, C., Santesso, N., Rosenbaum, S., Nilsen, E. S., Rader, T., Ciapponi, A., & Dilkes, H. (2010). Presenting the results of Cochrane Systematic Reviews to a consumer audience: A qualitative study. Medical Decision Making, 30(5), 566–577. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hauck, S. A. (2019). Sharing planetary science in plain language. Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, 124(10), 2462–2464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2001). Humble servants of the discipline? Self-mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, 20(3), 207–226. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ishizaki, S., & Kaufer, D. (2011). DocuScope: Computer-aided rhetorical analysis. In P. McCarthy & C. Boonthum (Eds.), Applied natural language processing and content analysis: Advances in identification, investigation, and resolution (pp. 276–297). IGI Global.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
James, L. C., & Bharadia, T. (2019). Lay summaries and writing for patients: Where are we now and where are we going? Medical Writing, 28, 46–51.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, N. N., & Williams, M. F. (2017). The social justice impact of plain language: A critical approach to plain language analysis. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 412–429. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kadic, A. J., Fidahic, M., Vujcic, M., Saric, F., Propadalo, I., Marelja, I., & Puljak, L. (2016). Cochrane plain language summaries are highly heterogeneous with low adherence to the standards. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), 1–4.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaufer, D., & Ishizaki, S. (2022). Computer-aided close reading: Visualizing contrastive persuasion strategies. In J. Fahnestock & R. A. Harris (Eds.), Routledge handbook of language and persuasion (pp. 505–524). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leong, A. (2020). The passive voice in scientific writing through the ages: A diachronic study. Text & Talk, 40(4), 467–489. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lugaz, N. (2021). Plain language summaries required for submission to the Space Weather Journal. Space Weather, 19(4). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maguire, L. K., & Clarke, M. (2014). How much do you need: A randomised experiment of whether readers can understand the key messages from summaries of Cochrane Reviews without reading the full review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 107(11), 444–449. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinez Silvagnoli, L., Shepherd, C., Pritchett, J., & Gardner, J. (2022). Optimizing readability and format of plain language summaries for medical research articles: Cross-sectional survey study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(1), e22122. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Nunn, E., & Pinfield, S. (2014). Lay summaries of open access journal articles: Engaging with the general public on medical research. Learned Publishing, 27(3), 173–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phipps, D., Jensen, K., Johnny, M., & Myers, G. (2013). A field note describing the development and dissemination of clear language research summaries for university-based knowledge mobilization. Scholarly and Research Communication, 4(1), 1–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redish, J. (2000). Readability formulas have even more limitations than Klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation, 24(3), 132–137. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rosenberg, A., Baróniková, S., Feighery, L., Gattrell, W., Egelund Olsen, R., Watson, A., Koder, T., & Winchester, C. (2021). Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(11), 2015–2016. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, D. G. (2015). Monkeywrenching plain language: Ecodefense, ethics, and the technical communication of ecotage. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 58(2), 154–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schriver, K. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(4), 343–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selzer, J. (1983). What constitutes a “readable” technical style? In P. Anderson, R. J. Brockman, & C. R. Miller (Eds.), New essays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory, practice (pp. 71–89). Baywood.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinberg, E. (1991). Introduction. In E. Steinberg (Ed.), Plain language: Principles and practice. Wayne State University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoll, M., Kerwer, M., Lieb, K., & Chasiotis, A. (2021). Plain language summaries: A systematic review of theory, guidelines, and empirical research. PsychArchives. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stricker, J., Chasiotis, A., Kerwer, M., & Günther, A. (2020). Scientific abstracts and plain language summaries in psychology: A comparison based on readability indices. PLoS ONE, 15(4): e0231160. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willerton, R. (2015). Plain language and ethical action: A dialogic approach to technical content in the 21st century. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, M. F. (2010). From black codes to recodification: Removing the veil from regulatory writing. Baywood.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Dreher, Kira
2025. 2025 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm), ► pp. 331 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 1 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue