Plain-Language Summaries for Research Papers: A Writing Guide

A plain-language summary (also called a lay summary or plain English summary) is a short, jargon-free account of a research paper’s question, methods, and findings, written so that someone outside the field — a patient, a policymaker, a funder’s public-facing website visitor, a journalist — can understand what the research was about and why it matters. It is a distinct document from the paper’s scientific abstract, not a simplified copy of it, and an increasing number of funders now require one alongside the full application or the final report.

This guide covers why that requirement has spread, how a plain-language summary differs from a scientific abstract and from a graphical abstract, the structure and length conventions funders typically expect, and practical techniques for cutting jargon without changing what the research actually found.

Why Funders Increasingly Require a Plain-Language Summary

Three UK and EU funding bodies illustrate how this has moved from good practice to a submitted, often publicly published, requirement.

UKRI. The UKRI Funding Service application guidance asks applicants to write the project title and summary “in plain English” and to avoid jargon, acronyms, and plays on words, because the summary is intended to be “meaningful and accessible to non-specialist audiences.” That summary is then published on a publicly available UKRI site if the project is funded, which is why applicants are also told to keep confidential information out of it.

NIHR. The National Institute for Health Research maintains a standing public commitment to plain English summaries for the research it funds, with dedicated author guidance (via its journals library and Health Research Authority partners) on how to write one, distinct from the technical abstract that accompanies the same report. NIHR-funded researchers are expected to produce a plain-language summary as a defined, reviewed section of the final report, not an optional add-on.

Horizon Europe. The Horizon Europe standard application form requires that a proposal’s abstract be understandable to a non-specialist reader, and the European Commission’s project-reporting system separately collects a “Summary for Publication” — a stand-alone, public-facing account of the project written for CORDIS, the Commission’s public project database, rather than for reviewers. The practical effect is the same as UKRI’s: a plain-language account of the work becomes a public record tied to the grant, not just internal reporting.

Beyond these three, plain-language expectations are spreading through funders’ broader public-engagement and patient/public-involvement (PPI) commitments — Wellcome Trust and many national funding agencies now build plain-language communication into their standard grant conditions and reporting templates, even where the requirement isn’t as tightly codified as UKRI’s or NIHR’s. The direction of travel across research funders is consistently toward requiring one, not away from it, so treat “does my funder require this” as a question worth checking in the current call guidance rather than assuming it doesn’t apply.

Plain-Language Summary vs. Scientific Abstract

A plain-language summary and a scientific abstract serve different readers and are written to different rules, even when they describe the same study:

• Audience. The abstract is written for peer reviewers, editors, and other specialists who already understand the field’s vocabulary and can evaluate methodological detail. The plain-language summary is written for someone with no background in the subject at all.
• Content selection. An abstract, especially a structured one following the IMRaD structure (Background, Methods, Results, Conclusions), is expected to state the study design, sample size, statistical results, and effect sizes precisely enough for an expert to judge the work’s rigor. A plain-language summary strips almost all of that out and keeps only what a non-specialist needs to understand the question, the general approach, the headline finding, and why it matters — precise numbers and technical qualifiers are usually cut or radically simplified.
• Vocabulary. The abstract uses field-standard terminology without definition, on the assumption the reader already knows it. The plain-language summary either avoids that terminology entirely or defines it in a single, everyday sentence the first time it’s unavoidable.
• Length and placement. Abstracts commonly run 200–300 words and sit at the front of the manuscript, governed by journal instructions. Plain-language summaries are usually shorter or comparably short (funders’ guidance ranges from roughly 150 to 500 words), and they typically live in the grant application, the final report, or a funder’s public project database — not the published paper itself, though some journals now request one as a supplementary element.

For a worked, section-by-section model of what a structured scientific abstract looks like in practice, see CASRAI’s Research Paper Abstract: A Worked Example.

Plain-Language Summary vs. Graphical Abstract

These are also frequently confused, because both exist to make a paper’s core message accessible faster than reading the full text — but they do it in different media and for different purposes. A graphical abstract is a single self-explanatory image that conveys the study’s central finding or method visually, typically published alongside the manuscript on a journal’s website or table of contents, with little to no free-standing prose. A plain-language summary is prose: full sentences, written to be read (or read aloud, or translated), and it can carry nuance — caveats, context, why the finding matters to a particular audience — that a single image structurally cannot. A journal or funder may ask for both; they aren’t substitutes for each other, and producing one doesn’t satisfy a requirement for the other.

Structure and Length Conventions

Requirements vary by funder, but most plain-language summary templates converge on a similar shape, close to a simplified IMRaD:

1. The problem or question, in everyday terms. One or two sentences on what the researchers wanted to find out and why it matters to people outside the field — a patient group, a community, a policy area.
2. What was done, at a high level. A general description of the approach (e.g. “we surveyed 400 patients” or “we analyzed existing hospital records”) without methodological detail a specialist would need to assess rigor.
3. What was found. The headline result, stated in plain terms and without overstating certainty the data don’t support.
4. Why it matters. A closing sentence or two connecting the finding to a real-world implication — what might change, what’s now better understood, what comes next.

Length guidance differs by funder and context: NIHR and UKRI-style summaries commonly run 150–300 words; some journal-supplementary lay summaries run shorter (100–150 words); Horizon Europe’s public “Summary for Publication” has no fixed word count but is expected to be a short, stand-alone paragraph rather than a multi-page document. Always check the specific call or journal guidance for an exact word or character limit before drafting — funders’ online submission forms frequently enforce a hard limit and will reject or truncate text over it.

Writing Principles: Avoiding Jargon While Staying Accurate

The hard part of a plain-language summary isn’t shortening the text — it’s shortening it without quietly changing what’s true. A few practical rules:

• Define, don’t just avoid, unavoidable terms. Some technical terms genuinely can’t be cut (a drug name, a specific condition). Define the term in the same sentence it first appears, in everyday language, rather than assuming the reader can look it up.
• Replace nominalizations with verbs. “We conducted an investigation into the association between X and Y” becomes “we looked at whether X affects Y.” Plain language reads as action, not process.
• Keep sentences short and single-idea. One claim per sentence is easier to follow and harder to misread than a sentence carrying three qualifying clauses.
• Preserve uncertainty honestly. If the finding was an association, not a proven cause, say “linked to” or “associated with,” not “causes.” Simplifying language should never simplify away a limitation, a caveat, or the actual strength of the evidence — that’s the difference between plain language and misleading language.
• Cut, don’t compress, statistical detail. Rather than translating a confidence interval into plain words (which often reads worse than it started), most plain-language summaries simply omit precise statistics and state the direction and practical size of the effect instead (“about twice as likely,” “a small improvement”).
• Write for a read-aloud test. A sentence that sounds natural spoken aloud to a non-specialist friend is usually plain enough; a sentence you’d only ever encounter in print is usually not.

Illustrative example

The following is an illustrative composite, not a real published study, provided only to show the transformation in practice:

Abstract-style sentence: “A retrospective cohort analysis demonstrated a statistically significant association between adherence to the intervention protocol and reduced 30-day readmission rates (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48–0.79).”

Plain-language rewrite: “Patients who followed the new care plan closely were less likely to be readmitted to hospital within a month than those who didn’t. We can’t say the care plan directly caused the difference, but the link was strong enough that it’s worth testing further.”

Common Pitfalls

• Writing the plain-language summary last, from memory. Drafting it as an afterthought, without the full paper open, tends to produce something either too vague to be useful or accidentally inaccurate. Draft it against the actual results section.
• Treating it as marketing copy. A plain-language summary should be neutral and accurate, not promotional — overselling a finding to make it sound more exciting undermines the same trust the requirement exists to build.
• Assuming “plain language” means “short abstract.” Simply deleting sentences from the technical abstract until it fits a word count usually leaves jargon behind and strips context a lay reader needed. Plain-language summaries are typically written fresh, not edited down from the abstract.
• Ignoring the funder’s own template. Many funders (NIHR and UKRI among them) provide specific headings or prompts for the summary field. Departing from that structure without reason makes the summary harder for the funder to reuse on their public-facing site.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a plain-language summary the same as a lay summary?

Yes — “plain-language summary,” “lay summary,” and “plain English summary” are used interchangeably across funders and journals. NIHR and UK research-ethics bodies tend to say “lay summary” or “plain English summary”; EU and many international funders more often say “plain-language summary.” There is no meaningful difference in what’s expected.

Who should write the plain-language summary?

Typically the research team, sometimes in collaboration with a patient/public involvement group or a communications officer, since the point is to test the draft against readers who genuinely aren’t specialists. Some funders and institutions run the summary past a PPI panel or lay reviewer before submission specifically to catch jargon the authors no longer notice.

Does every funder require one?

No — requirements vary by funder, funding stream, and sometimes by individual call. UKRI, NIHR, and Horizon Europe are among the funders with an explicit, codified expectation as of 2026; always check the current call guidance rather than assuming a past requirement still applies, since these policies are actively evolving.

Can I reuse my plain-language summary as a graphical abstract caption?

Not directly. A graphical abstract’s on-image text is meant to be minimal — short labels, not full sentences — while a plain-language summary is prose meant to be read as a paragraph. You can draw on the same key finding for both, but the graphical abstract’s text needs to be cut down far further and rebuilt around the image, not pasted in from the summary.

How long should a plain-language summary be?

Most funder templates ask for roughly 150–300 words, though this varies — some journal-supplementary lay summaries are as short as 100–150 words, and Horizon Europe’s public summary for publication has no fixed limit. Check the specific submission form for a hard character or word limit before drafting.