Perspectives from ISMPP Insider’s Expert Successes Initiative, a forum for sharing practical experiences and insights.
As expectations for transparency and accessibility in scientific publishing continue to rise, Plain Language Summaries of Publications (PLS-Ps) have emerged as a practical way to bridge the gap between complex research and real-world understanding.
Designed for non-expert audiences and published in open-access journals, standalone PLSPs explain why a study was done, what was found, and why it matters, without requiring journal subscriptions or technical expertise. Drawing on experiences from two publication teams, this article explores how strategic planning, collaboration, and thoughtful execution can help PLSPs deliver meaningful impact for patients, healthcare professionals, and the broader public.
Theme 1: Strategic and Needs-Driven PLSP Planning
Ashwini Dhume, Head of Medical Communications and Scientific Exchange, US Medical Affairs, J&J; Vicky Kanta, Scientific Director, Lumanity; Wilson Joe, VP Scientific Strategy, Lumanity
For Ashwini, Vicky, and Wilson, successful PLSPs start well before manuscript submission. They emphasized integrating PLSPs into publication planning early, rather than treating them as add-ons, allowing teams to align timelines, budgets, and compliance considerations from the outset.
Integrate PLSPs into publication planning early—not as add-ons
Study selection is also a key decision point. Their experience suggests prioritizing clinically meaningful datasets, such as phase 3 or registrational studies, where the findings are potentially practice changing and most relevant to patients, caregivers, and/or community healthcare providers. Early-phase studies may be scientifically important, but often lack the immediate applicability that justifies a standalone PLSP.
Journal policies also influence planning. Some high-impact journals restrict or embargo PLSP publications, forcing teams to weigh journal prestige against the opportunity to share accessible summaries. In cases where research has clear public health relevance, these experts found that the ability to publish a PLSP can outweigh journal tier alone as a factor in journal selection.
From their perspective, strategic PLSP planning is ultimately about intent: identifying where accessible communication will add the most value. Some factors to consider when deciding on PLSP development include whether the study has clear clinical relevance, meaningful efficacy and safety findings, and/or outcomes that are particularly relevant for key audiences.
Theme 2: Patient-Centric Development and Collaboration
Donna Mitchell, Director, Global Medical Evidence, Oncology, Bayer; Yuan Wang, Team Lead of Scientific Communication for GI and Rhinology, Sanofi; Michael Wang, Oncology Publications Intern, Bayer; PharmD Candidate 2028, University of Washington School of Pharmacy
Donna, Yuan, and Michael approached PLSPs through a strongly patient-centric lens. Rather than “cherry-picking” manuscripts, these experts relied on patient advisory feedback and close collaboration with Patient Engagement colleagues to determine which studies warranted a PLSP.
A defining feature of their approach was direct patient involvement. Patients were included as co-authors and reviewers, with kick-off calls used to clarify roles, expectations, and timelines. Patient authors provided input on wording, visual design, and overall relevance, ensuring the summaries reflected lived experience, not just scientific priorities. A patient perspective section was included, in which the patient authors described their experiences with the disease and what the scientific findings mean for the patient community.
Patient involvement ensures PLSPs reflect lived experience, not just scientific priorities.
They also highlighted practical tactics for managing diverse feedback. While email reviews were useful, real-time discussions proved more effective when reconciling conflicting suggestions or addressing concerns about oversimplification. In some cases, journals or agencies facilitated patient peer review, further validating clarity and usefulness. PLSPs were not simplified versions of manuscripts but purpose-built communication tools. This mindset influenced everything from language choice to visual structure and reinforced the value of collaboration across authors, patients, and publication professionals.
Theme 3: Execution, Resources, and Responsible Use of AI
Both contributor groups stressed that PLSPs require dedicated resources. Budget considerations extended beyond writing to include visual design, patient and HCP review, and, in some cases, multimedia elements such as animations or translated versions.
AI tools were viewed as promising enablers, supporting the development of plain language summaries, glossaries, and infographic concepts. While early outputs often required significant refinement to meet readability, design, and audience needs, the rapid evolution of generative AI has led to more sophisticated tools that can now produce higher-quality, audience-appropriate content with less manual reworking.
Compliance and policy alignment were recurring themes. Including patients as authors, using AI-generated content, or working with embargoed data can trigger additional review requirements. Wilson’s team referenced ISMPP guidance on AI use, emphasizing transparency, author accountability, and data safeguards. Some organizations addressed confidentiality concerns by developing closed, in-house AI platforms for PLSP development.
AI can enable PLSP development, but thoughtful execution and human oversight remain essential.
Closing Insight: Lessons That Translate Across Teams
Despite different starting points, contributors shared common lessons. Effective PLSPs are planned early, aligned to meaningful data, and built through collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals. They balance clarity with scientific accuracy, use AI cautiously and transparently, and treat feedback as an opportunity for iteration rather than friction. Most importantly, they are grounded in empathy—recognizing that accessibility is not a simplification of science, but an expansion of who science can reach.
Acknowledgment: The ISMPP Insider Content Lab team would like to thank the medical communications experts who participated in interviews about strategic and tactical success with PLSPs.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the medical communications experts are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views, policies, or positions of their employer or of ISMPP.
Disclosure: This article was developed by the ISMPP Insider Content Lab team using ChatGPT 5.2 (OpenAI) customized to meet the requirements for a Content Lab article. Inputs to the custom GPT were an original human-executed draft derived from discussions with the experts. Additional human editorial and process oversight was provided by members of the Content Lab team, Vidhi Vashisht, Jerolyn Monte, and Ross Ruriani, and Doreen Valentine (ISMPP).
©2026 International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP)
