IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v129y2024i12d10.1007_s11192-024-05146-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Prevalence and characteristics of graphical abstracts in a specialist pharmacology journal

Author

Listed:
  • Russyl Gilling

    (Kainic Medical Communications Ltd.)

  • Marissa Scandlyn

    (Kainic Medical Communications Ltd.
    First in Human)

  • Blair Hesp

    (Kainic Medical Communications Ltd.
    First in Human)

Abstract

Graphical abstracts (GAs) are publication extenders used to visually communicate scientific concepts and data alongside their parent manuscript. This study investigated the prevalence and characteristics of GAs published in a clinical pharmacology journal that facilitates GA use through free publication and providing templates to authors. The characteristics of clinical publications in the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology in issues dated 2021–2023 were collated and accompanying GAs reviewed and compared with the associated written abstracts. In total, 64/1019 (6.3%) publications were accompanied by a GA. There was no association between the presence of a GA and the geographical location of the principal investigator, year of publication or open access status. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to include a GA compared with non-industry funded studies (19/179 [10.6%] vs. 25/458 [5.5%]; Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.0246). Professional medical writing support was also associated with a numerically higher prevalence of GAs (16.7% [11/66] vs. 7.6% [7/92] with no medical writing support; Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.1257). While GAs generally included study results (94%), only approximately half presented methodology (58%) and conclusions (50%). Few GAs (27%) included the title of the publication. In conclusion, uptake of GAs by authors was low. Industry and professional medical writing support was associated with increased GA uptake, but the prevalence remained below 20%. GAs are also heterogenous in nature, often inconsistent with the written abstract and are generally unable to stand alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Russyl Gilling & Marissa Scandlyn & Blair Hesp, 2024. "Prevalence and characteristics of graphical abstracts in a specialist pharmacology journal," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(12), pages 7881-7888, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05146-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-024-05146-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-024-05146-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-024-05146-5?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kimberley Collins & David Shiffman & Jenny Rock, 2016. "How Are Scientists Using Social Media in the Workplace?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-10, October.
    2. Kate Bredbenner & Sanford M Simon, 2019. "Video abstracts and plain language summaries are more effective than graphical abstracts and published abstracts," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    3. Hunter Bennett & Flynn Slattery, 2023. "Graphical abstracts are associated with greater Altmetric attention scores, but not citations, in sport science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3793-3804, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ehsan Mohammadi & Mike Thelwall & Mary Kwasny & Kristi L Holmes, 2018. "Academic information on Twitter: A user survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Tristan Bonnevie & Aurore Repel & Francis-Edouard Gravier & Joel Ladner & Louis Sibert & Jean-François Muir & Antoine Cuvelier & Marc-Olivier Fischer, 2023. "Video abstracts are associated with an increase in research reports citations, views and social attention: a cross-sectional study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(5), pages 3001-3015, May.
    3. Ju Wen & Lan Yi, 2023. "Comparing lay summaries to scientific abstracts for readability and jargon use: a case report," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(10), pages 5791-5800, October.
    4. Mahsa Amiri & Maryam Yaghtin & Hajar Sotudeh, 2024. "How do tweeters feel about scientific misinformation: an infoveillance sentiment analysis of tweets on retraction notices and retracted papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(1), pages 261-287, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:129:y:2024:i:12:d:10.1007_s11192-024-05146-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.