research write synopsis

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing
• Research Papers

How to Write a Research Synopsis: Template, Examples, & More

Last Updated: May 9, 2024 Fact Checked

Research Synopsis Template

• Organizing & Formatting
• Writing Your Synopsis
• Reviewing & Editing

This article was reviewed by Gerald Posner and by wikiHow staff writer, Raven Minyard, BA . Gerald Posner is an Author & Journalist based in Miami, Florida. With over 35 years of experience, he specializes in investigative journalism, nonfiction books, and editorials. He holds a law degree from UC College of the Law, San Francisco, and a BA in Political Science from the University of California-Berkeley. He’s the author of thirteen books, including several New York Times bestsellers, the winner of the Florida Book Award for General Nonfiction, and has been a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in History. He was also shortlisted for the Best Business Book of 2020 by the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 233,581 times.

A research synopsis describes the plan for your research project and is typically submitted to professors or department heads so they can approve your project. Most synopses are between 3,000 and 4,000 words and provide your research objectives and methods. While the specific types of information you need to include in your synopsis may vary depending on your department guidelines, most synopses include the same basic sections. In this article, we’ll walk you step-by-step through everything you need to know to write a synopsis for research.

Things You Should Know

• Begin your research synopsis by introducing the question your research will answer and its importance to your field.
• List 2 or 3 specific objectives you hope to achieve and how they will advance your field.
• Discuss your methodology to demonstrate why the study design you chose is appropriate for your research question.

Organizing Your Research Synopsis

• Find out what citation format you’re supposed to use, as well as whether you’re expected to use parenthetical references or footnotes in the body of your synopsis.
• If you have questions about anything in your guidelines, ask your instructor or advisor to ensure you follow them correctly.

• Title: the title of your study
• Abstract: a summary of your research synopsis
• Introduction: identifies and describes your research question
• Literature Review: a review of existing relevant research
• Objectives: goals you hope to accomplish through your study
• Hypotheses: results you expect to find through your research
• Methodology and methods: explains the methods you’ll use to complete your study
• References: a list of any references used in citations

Tip: Your synopsis might have additional sections, depending on your discipline and the type of research you're conducting. Talk to your instructor or advisor about which sections are required for your department.

• Keep in mind that you might not end up using all the sources you initially found. After you've finished your synopsis, go back and delete the ones you didn't use.

Writing Your Research Synopsis

• Your title should be a brief and specific reflection of the main objectives of your study. In general, it should be under 50 words and should avoid unneeded phrases like “an investigation into.”
• On the other hand, avoid a title that’s too short, as well. For example, a title like “A Study of Urban Heating” is too short and doesn’t provide any insight into the specifics of your research.

• The introduction allows you to explain to your reader exactly why the question you’re trying to answer is vital and how your knowledge and experience make you the best researcher to tackle it.
• Support most of the statements in your introduction with other studies in the area that support the importance of your question. For example, you might cite a previous study that mentions your problem as an area where further research needs to be done.
• The length of your introduction will vary depending on the overall length of your synopsis as well as the ultimate length of your eventual paper after you’ve finished your research. Generally, it will cover the first page or two of your synopsis.

• For example, try finding relevant literature through educational journals or bulletins from organizations like WHO and CDC.
• Typically, a thorough literature review discusses 8 to 10 previous studies related to your research problem.
• As with the introduction, the length of your literature review will vary depending on the overall length of your synopsis. Generally, it will be about the same length as your introduction.
• Try to use the most current research available and avoid sources over 5 years old.

• For example, an objective for research on urban heating could be “to compare urban heat modification caused by vegetation of mixed species considering the 5 most common urban trees in an area.”
• Generally, the overall objective doesn’t relate to solving a specific problem or answering a specific question. Rather, it describes how your particular project will advance your field.
• For specific objectives, think in terms of action verbs like “quantify” or “compare.” Here, you’re hoping to gain a better understanding of associations between particular variables.

• Specify the sources you used and the reasons you have arrived at your hypotheses. Typically, these will come from prior studies that have shown similar relationships.
• For example, suppose a prior study showed that children who were home-schooled were less likely to be in fraternities or sororities in college. You might use that study to back up a hypothesis that home-schooled children are more independent and less likely to need strong friendship support networks.

• Expect your methodology to be at least as long as either your introduction or your literature review, if not longer. Include enough detail that your reader can fully understand how you’re going to carry out your study.
• This section of your synopsis may include information about how you plan to collect and analyze your data, the overall design of your study, and your sampling methods, if necessary. Include information about the study setting, like the facilities and equipment that are available to you to carry out your study.
• For example, your research work may take place in a hospital, and you may use cluster sampling to gather data.

• Use between 100 and 200 words to give your readers a basic understanding of your research project.
• Include a clear statement of the problem, the main goals or objectives of your study, the theories or conceptual framework your research relies upon, and the methods you’ll use to reach your goals or objectives.

Tip: Jot down a few notes as you draft your other sections that you can compile for your abstract to keep your writing more efficient.

Reviewing and Editing Your Research Synopsis

• If you don’t have that kind of time because you’re up against a deadline, at least take a few hours away from your synopsis before you go back to edit it. Do something entirely unrelated to your research, like taking a walk or going to a movie.

• Eliminate sentences that don’t add any new information. Even the longest synopsis is a brief document—make sure every word needs to be there and counts for something.
• Get rid of jargon and terms of art in your field that could be better explained in plain language. Even though your likely readers are people who are well-versed in your field, providing plain language descriptions shows you know what you’re talking about. Using jargon can seem like you’re trying to sound like you know more than you actually do.

Tip: Free apps, such as Grammarly and Hemingway App, can help you identify grammatical errors as well as areas where your writing could be clearer. However, you shouldn't rely solely on apps since they can miss things.

• Reference list formatting is very particular. Read your references out loud, with the punctuation and spacing, to pick up on errors you wouldn’t have noticed if you’d just read over them.
• Compare your format to the one in the stylebook you’re using and make sure all of your entries are correct.

• Read your synopsis backward by starting on the last word and reading each word separately from the last to the first. This helps isolate spelling errors. Reading backward sentence by sentence helps you isolate grammatical errors without being distracted by the content.
• Print your synopsis and circle every punctuation mark with a red pen. Then, go through them and focus on whether they’re correct.
• Read your synopsis out loud, including the punctuation, as though you were dictating the synopsis.

• Have at least one person who isn’t familiar with your area of study look over your synopsis. If they can understand your project, you know your writing is clear. If any parts confuse them, then that’s an area where you can improve the clarity of your writing.

Expert Q&A

• If you make significant changes to your synopsis after your first or second round of editing, you may need to proofread it again to make sure you didn’t introduce any new errors. Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

You Might Also Like

• ↑ https://admin.umt.edu.pk/Media/Site/iib1/FileManager/FORMAT%20OF%20SYNOPSIS%2012-10-2018.pdf
• ↑ https://www.scientificstyleandformat.org/Tools/SSF-Citation-Quick-Guide.html
• ↑ https://numspak.edu.pk/upload/media/Guidelines%20for%20Synopsis%20Writing1531455748.pdf
• ↑ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279917593_Research_synopsis_guidelines
• ↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/
• ↑ https://www.cornerstone.edu/blog-post/six-steps-to-really-edit-your-paper/

About This Article

• Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Jul 25, 2022

Did this article help you?

Wave Bubble

Aug 31, 2021

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Sign up for wikiHow's weekly email newsletter

• Privacy Policy

Home » Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Summary

Definition:

A research summary is a brief and concise overview of a research project or study that highlights its key findings, main points, and conclusions. It typically includes a description of the research problem, the research methods used, the results obtained, and the implications or significance of the findings. It is often used as a tool to quickly communicate the main findings of a study to other researchers, stakeholders, or decision-makers.

Structure of Research Summary

The Structure of a Research Summary typically include:

• Introduction : This section provides a brief background of the research problem or question, explains the purpose of the study, and outlines the research objectives.
• Methodology : This section explains the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. It describes the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Results : This section presents the main findings of the study, including statistical analysis if applicable. It may include tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data.
• Discussion : This section interprets the results and explains their implications. It discusses the significance of the findings, compares them to previous research, and identifies any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclusion : This section summarizes the main points of the research and provides a conclusion based on the findings. It may also suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• References : This section lists the sources cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

How to Write Research Summary

Here are the steps you can follow to write a research summary:

• Read the research article or study thoroughly: To write a summary, you must understand the research article or study you are summarizing. Therefore, read the article or study carefully to understand its purpose, research design, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Identify the main points : Once you have read the research article or study, identify the main points, key findings, and research question. You can highlight or take notes of the essential points and findings to use as a reference when writing your summary.
• Write the introduction: Start your summary by introducing the research problem, research question, and purpose of the study. Briefly explain why the research is important and its significance.
• Summarize the methodology : In this section, summarize the research design, methods, and procedures used to conduct the study. Explain the sample size, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques.
• Present the results: Summarize the main findings of the study. Use tables, charts, or graphs to visually represent the data if necessary.
• Interpret the results: In this section, interpret the results and explain their implications. Discuss the significance of the findings, compare them to previous research, and identify any limitations or future directions for research.
• Conclude the summary : Summarize the main points of the research and provide a conclusion based on the findings. Suggest implications for future research or practical applications of the results.
• Revise and edit : Once you have written the summary, revise and edit it to ensure that it is clear, concise, and free of errors. Make sure that your summary accurately represents the research article or study.
• Add references: Include a list of references cited in the research summary, following the appropriate citation style.

Example of Research Summary

Here is an example of a research summary:

Title: The Effects of Yoga on Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis

Introduction: This meta-analysis examines the effects of yoga on mental health. The study aimed to investigate whether yoga practice can improve mental health outcomes such as anxiety, depression, stress, and quality of life.

Methodology : The study analyzed data from 14 randomized controlled trials that investigated the effects of yoga on mental health outcomes. The sample included a total of 862 participants. The yoga interventions varied in length and frequency, ranging from four to twelve weeks, with sessions lasting from 45 to 90 minutes.

Results : The meta-analysis found that yoga practice significantly improved mental health outcomes. Participants who practiced yoga showed a significant reduction in anxiety and depression symptoms, as well as stress levels. Quality of life also improved in those who practiced yoga.

Discussion : The findings of this study suggest that yoga can be an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. The study supports the growing body of evidence that suggests that yoga can have a positive impact on mental health. Limitations of the study include the variability of the yoga interventions, which may affect the generalizability of the findings.

Conclusion : Overall, the findings of this meta-analysis support the use of yoga as an effective intervention for improving mental health outcomes. Further research is needed to determine the optimal length and frequency of yoga interventions for different populations.

References :

• Cramer, H., Lauche, R., Langhorst, J., Dobos, G., & Berger, B. (2013). Yoga for depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Depression and anxiety, 30(11), 1068-1083.
• Khalsa, S. B. (2004). Yoga as a therapeutic intervention: a bibliometric analysis of published research studies. Indian journal of physiology and pharmacology, 48(3), 269-285.
• Ross, A., & Thomas, S. (2010). The health benefits of yoga and exercise: a review of comparison studies. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 16(1), 3-12.

Purpose of Research Summary

The purpose of a research summary is to provide a brief overview of a research project or study, including its main points, findings, and conclusions. The summary allows readers to quickly understand the essential aspects of the research without having to read the entire article or study.

Research summaries serve several purposes, including:

• Facilitating comprehension: A research summary allows readers to quickly understand the main points and findings of a research project or study without having to read the entire article or study. This makes it easier for readers to comprehend the research and its significance.
• Communicating research findings: Research summaries are often used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public. The summary presents the essential aspects of the research in a clear and concise manner, making it easier for non-experts to understand.
• Supporting decision-making: Research summaries can be used to support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. This information can be used by policymakers or practitioners to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Saving time: Research summaries save time for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders who need to review multiple research studies. Rather than having to read the entire article or study, they can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.

Characteristics of Research Summary

The following are some of the key characteristics of a research summary:

• Concise : A research summary should be brief and to the point, providing a clear and concise overview of the main points of the research.
• Objective : A research summary should be written in an objective tone, presenting the research findings without bias or personal opinion.
• Comprehensive : A research summary should cover all the essential aspects of the research, including the research question, methodology, results, and conclusions.
• Accurate : A research summary should accurately reflect the key findings and conclusions of the research.
• Clear and well-organized: A research summary should be easy to read and understand, with a clear structure and logical flow.
• Relevant : A research summary should focus on the most important and relevant aspects of the research, highlighting the key findings and their implications.
• Audience-specific: A research summary should be tailored to the intended audience, using language and terminology that is appropriate and accessible to the reader.
• Citations : A research summary should include citations to the original research articles or studies, allowing readers to access the full text of the research if desired.

When to write Research Summary

Here are some situations when it may be appropriate to write a research summary:

• Proposal stage: A research summary can be included in a research proposal to provide a brief overview of the research aims, objectives, methodology, and expected outcomes.
• Conference presentation: A research summary can be prepared for a conference presentation to summarize the main findings of a study or research project.
• Journal submission: Many academic journals require authors to submit a research summary along with their research article or study. The summary provides a brief overview of the study’s main points, findings, and conclusions and helps readers quickly understand the research.
• Funding application: A research summary can be included in a funding application to provide a brief summary of the research aims, objectives, and expected outcomes.
• Policy brief: A research summary can be prepared as a policy brief to communicate research findings to policymakers or stakeholders in a concise and accessible manner.

Advantages of Research Summary

Research summaries offer several advantages, including:

• Time-saving: A research summary saves time for readers who need to understand the key findings and conclusions of a research project quickly. Rather than reading the entire research article or study, readers can quickly review the summary to determine whether the research is relevant to their needs.
• Clarity and accessibility: A research summary provides a clear and accessible overview of the research project’s main points, making it easier for readers to understand the research without having to be experts in the field.
• Improved comprehension: A research summary helps readers comprehend the research by providing a brief and focused overview of the key findings and conclusions, making it easier to understand the research and its significance.
• Enhanced communication: Research summaries can be used to communicate research findings to a wider audience, such as policymakers, practitioners, or the general public, in a concise and accessible manner.
• Facilitated decision-making: Research summaries can support decision-making processes by providing a summary of the research evidence on a particular topic. Policymakers or practitioners can use this information to make informed decisions about interventions, programs, or policies.
• Increased dissemination: Research summaries can be easily shared and disseminated, allowing research findings to reach a wider audience.

Limitations of Research Summary

Limitations of the Research Summary are as follows:

• Limited scope: Research summaries provide a brief overview of the research project’s main points, findings, and conclusions, which can be limiting. They may not include all the details, nuances, and complexities of the research that readers may need to fully understand the study’s implications.
• Risk of oversimplification: Research summaries can be oversimplified, reducing the complexity of the research and potentially distorting the findings or conclusions.
• Lack of context: Research summaries may not provide sufficient context to fully understand the research findings, such as the research background, methodology, or limitations. This may lead to misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the research.
• Possible bias: Research summaries may be biased if they selectively emphasize certain findings or conclusions over others, potentially distorting the overall picture of the research.
• Format limitations: Research summaries may be constrained by the format or length requirements, making it challenging to fully convey the research’s main points, findings, and conclusions.
• Accessibility: Research summaries may not be accessible to all readers, particularly those with limited literacy skills, visual impairments, or language barriers.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

Institutional Review Board – Application Sample...

Evaluating Research – Process, Examples and...

How to Write a Great Synopsis for Thesis

A synopsis is a structured outline of a research thesis and the steps followed to answer the research question. The goal of writing a synopsis is to clearly and thoroughly explain the need to investigate a certain problem using particular practical methods to conduct the study. One of the main components of this written work is an extensive literature review containing strong evidence that the proposed research is feasible.

Establishing the Background

A supervisor may ask you to write a synopsis for one or more reasons:

• to help you improve your critical thinking and writing skills
• to help you understand how to design a comprehensive synopsis
• to encourage you to write a comprehensive literature review to make sure that the research problem has not been answered yet
• to make you conduct a logical analysis of the steps that should be followed to meet the objectives of the research

A synopsis should be coherent in terms of research design. Thus, you should ensure that the research problem, aims, and research methods are logically linked and well-considered. Note that all synopses should contain answers for several crucial questions:

• Why should research on the proposed problem be undertaken?
• What is expected to be achieved?
• What has been done by other researchers on the proposed topic?
• How will the objectives of the study be achieved?

The Writing Process

Before proceeding, consider answering the following questions:

• Why am I going to study this topic?
• Why do I consider it to be important?
• Have I conducted an extensive literature review on the topic?
• What problem will the research help to solve?
• How do I incorporate previous studies on the topic?

The structure of a synopsis should correspond to the structure of qualifying research work, and the word count should be 2,500–3,000 words (Balu 38). The basic elements of a synopsis include a title page, contents page, an introduction, background, literature review, objectives, methods, experiments and results, conclusions, and references.

Introduction

As this comprises the first part of the main text, the introduction should convince readers that the study addresses a relevant topic and that the expected outcomes will provide important insights. Also, this section should include a brief description of the methods that will be used to answer the research question. Usually, the introduction is written in 1–3 paragraphs and answers the following questions:

• What is the topic of the research?
• What is the research problem that needs to be meaningfully understood or investigated?
• Why is the problem important?
• How will the problem be studied?

In this section, you should set the scene and better introduce the research topic by proving its scientific legitimacy and relevance. It is important to establish a clear focus and avoid broad generalizations and vague statements. If necessary, you may explain key concepts or terms. Consider covering the following points in this section:

• Discuss how the research will contribute to the existing scientific knowledge.
• Provide a detailed description of the research problem and purpose of the research.
• Provide a rationale for the study.
• Explain how the research question will be answered.
• Be sure to discuss the methods chosen and anticipated implications of the research.

Literature Review

A review of existing literature is an important part of a synopsis, as it:

• gives a more detailed look at scientific information related to the topic
• familiarizes readers with research conducted by others on a similar subject
• gives insight into the difficulties faced by other researchers
• helps identify variables for the research based on similar studies
• helps double-check the feasibility of the research problem.

When writing the literature review, do not simply present a list of methods researchers have used and conclusions they have drawn. It is important to compare and contrast different opinions and be unafraid to criticize some of them. Pay attention to controversial issues and divergent approaches used to address similar problems. You may discuss which arguments are more persuasive and which methods and techniques seem to be more valid and reliable. In this section, you are expected not to summarize but analyze the previous research while remembering to link it to your own purpose.

Identify the objectives of the research based on the literature review. Provide an overall objective related to the scientific contribution of the study to the subject area. Also include a specific objective that can be measured at the end of the research.

When writing this section, consider that the aim of the research is to produce new knowledge regarding the topic chosen. Therefore, the research methodology forms the core of your project, and your goal is to convince readers that the research design and methods chosen will rationally answer the research questions and provide effective tools to interpret the results correctly. It may be appropriate to incorporate some examples from your literature review into the description of the overall research design.

When describing the research methodology, ensure that you specify the approaches and techniques that will be used to answer the research question. In addition, be specific about applying the chosen methods and what you expect to achieve. Keep in mind that the methods section allows readers to evaluate the validity and feasibility of the study. Therefore, be sure to explain your decision to adopt specific methods and procedures. It is also important to discuss the anticipated barriers and limitations of the study and how they will be addressed. Specify what kind of contribution to the existing knowledge on the topic is expected, and discuss any ethical considerations that are relevant to the research.

Experiments and Results

Logically present and analyze the results of the study using tables or figures.

In this section, you should again state the significance of the research and summarize the study. Be sure to mention the study objectives and methods used to answer the research questions. Also, discuss how the results of the study contribute to the current knowledge on the problem.

A synopsis should contain a list of all references used. Make sure the references are formatted according to the chosen citation style and each source presented in this section is mentioned within the body of the synopsis.

The purpose of writing a synopsis is to show a supervisor a clear picture of a proposed project and allow him or her to find any gaps that have not been considered previously. A concisely written synopsis will help you gain approval to proceed with the actual research. While no rigid rules for writing this type of paper have been established, a synopsis should be constructed in a manner to help a supervisor understand the proposed research at first glance.

Balu, R. “Writing a Good Ph.D Research Synopsis.” International Journal of Research in Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 4, 2015, pp. 38–48.

Unfortunately, your browser is too old to work on this site.

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript.

• Current Students
• News & Press
• Exam Technique for In-Person Exams
• Revising for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
• Introduction to 24 Hour Take Home Exams
• Before the 24 Hour Take Home Exam
• Exam Technique for 24 Hour Take Home Exams
• Structuring a Literature Review
• Writing Coursework under Time Constraints
• Reflective Writing
• Writing a Synopsis
• Structuring a Science Report
• Presentations
• How the University works out your degree award
• Personal Extenuating Circumstances (PEC)
• Accessing your assignment feedback via Canvas
• Inspera Digital Exams
• Writing Introductions and Conclusions
• Paragraphing
• Reporting Verbs
• Signposting
• Proofreading
• Working with a Proofreader
• Writing Concisely
• The 1-Hour Writing Challenge
• Editing strategies
• Apostrophes
• Semi-colons
• Run-on sentences
• How to Improve your Grammar (native English)
• How to Improve your Grammar (non-native English)
• Independent Learning for Online Study
• Reflective Practice
• Academic Reading
• Strategic Reading Framework
• Note-taking Strategies
• Note-taking in Lectures
• Making Notes from Reading
• Using Evidence to Support your Argument
• Integrating Scholarship
• Managing Time and Motivation
• Dealing with Procrastination
• How to Paraphrase
• Quote or Paraphrase?
• How to Quote
• Referencing
• Artificial Intelligence and Academic Integrity
• Use and limitations of generative AI
• Acknowledging use of AI
• Numeracy, Maths & Statistics
• Library Search
• Search Techniques
• Keeping up to date
• Evaluating Information
• Managing Information
• Thinking Critically about AI
• Using Information generated by AI
• Digital Capabilities
• SensusAccess
• Develop Your Digital Skills
• Digital Tools to Help You Study

Learn how to prepare and write a synopsis assignment.

• Newcastle University
• Academic Skills Kit
• Assignment Types

A synopsis is a brief summary which gives readers an overview of the main points. In an academic context, this is usually a summary of a text (a journal article, book, report etc) but in some instances you might be writing a synopsis of a talk, film or other form of presentation. A synopsis is a neutral summary, objectively capturing the main points, rather than your own perspective or critique, and it focusses directly on the text you’re summarising rather than being a wider discussion of a topic, as an essay might be.

A synopsis aims to give the reader a full, if brief, account of the whole text so that they can follow its main points without having to read it themselves. It’s not a ‘trailer’ designed to tempt your audience to read the text itself, so you don’t have to worry about ‘hooking’ them in with hints and high points or ‘spoiling the ending’ - give the whole text equal coverage, including the conclusions. You could add some commentary which gives the reader a bit of context about the text, including the authors and circumstances it was written in (for example, if it is part of a debate, particular school of thought or its significance and what impact it’s had).

Writing a good synopsis is a skill, and there are a number of challenges: 

• Separating the main points from the minor detail
• Knowing what to leave out as well as what to include
• Giving a sense of the overall narrative as well as listing the key points
• Covering the whole text within a small word limit
• Knowing how closely to stick to the original, especially in terms of the wording
• Whether to give all key points equal treatment, or cover some more briefly, even combining them
• Rephrasing things concisely without losing the meaning or misrepresenting it
• Not leaving out anything crucial to understanding the whole overall message

A good synopsis will allow the reader to feel as if they’d skimread the whole text themselves, understanding the overall gist and highlighting what they need to know. A poor synopsis will get bogged down in detail, giving a confused account of the whole story by just listing points, miss out major points or give an inaccurate or one-sided account or stick so closely to the original that it becomes plagiarism without demonstrating a real understanding by the person summarising it.  

How to prepare a synopsis

Boiling down the key points and overall narrative of the original means good reading and note-taking skills which aim to identify and boil down key points to their essence. You could try some of the following approaches: 

• Read the whole text, and afterwards, without re-reading, jot down your first initial summary in 50 words to capture its overall point. You can check it back for accuracy or anything you left out, but stick within ca 50 words
• Read the introduction and first line of each paragraph to get a sense of the overall structure and key points within it
• Highlight one sentence in each paragraph that you think is essential detail to understanding that section
• Alternatively, with a marker pen, cross out anything that isn’t essential to an understanding of the whole section or text 
• Jot down only key words as a summary of each point rather than whole sentences
• Read each paragraph and summarise it without looking, in one sentence of your own 
• Consider how many points you can make within your word count, and reduce or combine your list of summarised points down to this number

You could start small, identifying just keywords or sentences at first and then work them up into phrases, bullet points and sentences as a rough plan or draft, or you could start big with the original text and reduce each section, paragraph and sentence summary again and again until you have boiled it down to its essence.  

When you start to prepare your first plan or draft, try to use your notes or memory and step away from the original as much as you can. You can go back and check it afterwards, but you need to create some distance to be able to create your own account and have confidence in the points you have identified as essential.

Writing a synopsis

The main decisions facing you as you write up your summary are about how closely to stick to the original in terms of structure and style, and how much attention to give to each point. 

• You could begin your synopsis with a brief context, explaining who the authors are, the context and significance of their work, as well as anything you think might help the reader to understand the following summary
• The most common structure is to follow that of the original text, to give a sense of its narrative flow as well as the key points within it. You could choose to depart from it a little though, perhaps glossing over some points faster than others, combining two sections which go together or aren’t enough in their own right, possibly even changing the order a little where it helps to combine two similar points. Careful use of signposting language will help the reader clearly follow the structure (and note anywhere you’ve changed it from the original) so they can identify the bit you’re talking about in the original if they want to
• The style will naturally be strongly influenced by the original wording, but you should phrase it in your own words wherever possible. It’s harder to nibble away words from a much longer original than it is to start again and use your own concise phrasing, and you want to demonstrate your own understanding to the reader. You could use the odd original phrase or quotation here or there, but the synopsis needs to be more than a collage of quotations; it’s a thing in its own right rather than a cut-down version of the original
• You can also show your own response to the text in the way you use language to guide the reader to what you feel are the key points and (briefly) why. Your own voice doesn’t need to be very obvious in the synopsis, as it’s about the text rather than your reaction to it, but you have made analytical decisions about what is important, and might want to explain to the reader why these points are significant in understanding the whole
• What is the main purpose of this text? What did it aim to discover, explain or prove?
• Why was this research done? How significant is it?
• How was the research conducted? What kind of research is it?
• What were the three (or four, five) main things I should be aware of from this paper?
• What is their line of argument?
• What is their overall conclusion, recommendation, finding? Why is that important?

Managing word count

The trick to writing a concise synopsis which keeps within your word limit is not to start from the much bigger original text, but from your own boiled down notes. If you’re over the word count, you could start cutting out words that don’t seem essential, but if you go too far, you end up with a text which does not read well and doesn’t hang together. It might be better to remove whole sentences and perhaps whole points, than nibble away at words here and there.

Download this guide as a PDF

Learn how to prepare and write a synopsis assignment. **PDF Download**

• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer
• QuestionPro

• Solutions Industries Gaming Automotive Sports and events Education Government Travel & Hospitality Financial Services Healthcare Cannabis Technology Use Case NPS+ Communities Audience Contactless surveys Mobile LivePolls Member Experience GDPR Positive People Science 360 Feedback Surveys
• Resources Blog eBooks Survey Templates Case Studies Training Help center

Home Surveys Academic Research

Research Summary: What is it & how to write one

The Research Summary is used to report facts about a study clearly. You will almost certainly be required to prepare a research summary during your academic research or while on a research project for your organization.

If it is the first time you have to write one, the writing requirements may confuse you. The instructors generally assign someone to write a summary of the research work. Research summaries require the writer to have a thorough understanding of the issue.

This article will discuss the definition of a research summary and how to write one.

What is a research summary?

A research summary is a piece of writing that summarizes your research on a specific topic. Its primary goal is to offer the reader a detailed overview of the study with the key findings. A research summary generally contains the article’s structure in which it is written.

You must know the goal of your analysis before you launch a project. A research overview summarizes the detailed response and highlights particular issues raised in it. Writing it might be somewhat troublesome. To write a good overview, you want to start with a structure in mind. Read on for our guide.

Why is an analysis recap so important?

Your summary or analysis is going to tell readers everything about your research project. This is the critical piece that your stakeholders will read to identify your findings and valuable insights. Having a good and concise research summary that presents facts and comes with no research biases is the critical deliverable of any research project.

We’ve put together a cheat sheet to help you write a good research summary below.

Research Summary Guide

• Why was this research done?  – You want to give a clear description of why this research study was done. What hypothesis was being tested?
• Who was surveyed? – The what and why or your research decides who you’re going to interview/survey. Your research summary has a detailed note on who participated in the study and why they were selected. 
• What was the methodology? – Talk about the methodology. Did you do face-to-face interviews? Was it a short or long survey or a focus group setting? Your research methodology is key to the results you’re going to get. 
• What were the key findings? – This can be the most critical part of the process. What did we find out after testing the hypothesis? This section, like all others, should be just facts, facts facts. You’re not sharing how you feel about the findings. Keep it bias-free.
• Conclusion – What are the conclusions that were drawn from the findings. A good example of a conclusion. Surprisingly, most people interviewed did not watch the lunar eclipse in 2022, which is unexpected given that 100% of those interviewed knew about it before it happened.
• Takeaways and action points – This is where you bring in your suggestion. Given the data you now have from the research, what are the takeaways and action points? If you’re a researcher running this research project for your company, you’ll use this part to shed light on your recommended action plans for the business.

LEARN ABOUT:   Action Research

If you’re doing any research, you will write a summary, which will be the most viewed and more important part of the project. So keep a guideline in mind before you start. Focus on the content first and then worry about the length. Use the cheat sheet/checklist in this article to organize your summary, and that’s all you need to write a great research summary!

But once your summary is ready, where is it stored? Most teams have multiple documents in their google drives, and it’s a nightmare to find projects that were done in the past. Your research data should be democratized and easy to use.

We at QuestionPro launched a research repository for research teams, and our clients love it. All your data is in one place, and everything is searchable, including your research summaries! 

Authors: Prachi, Anas

MORE LIKE THIS

The Best Email Survey Tool to Boost Your Feedback Game

May 7, 2024

Top 10 Employee Engagement Survey Tools

Top 20 Employee Engagement Software Solutions

May 3, 2024

15 Best Customer Experience Software of 2024

May 2, 2024

Other categories

• Academic Research
• Artificial Intelligence
• Assessments
• Brand Awareness
• Case Studies
• Communities
• Consumer Insights
• Customer effort score
• Customer Engagement
• Customer Experience
• Customer Loyalty
• Customer Research
• Customer Satisfaction
• Employee Benefits
• Employee Engagement
• Employee Retention
• Friday Five
• General Data Protection Regulation
• Insights Hub
• Life@QuestionPro
• Market Research
• Mobile diaries
• Mobile Surveys
• New Features
• Online Communities
• Question Types
• Questionnaire
• QuestionPro Products
• Release Notes
• Research Tools and Apps
• Revenue at Risk
• Survey Templates
• Training Tips
• Uncategorized
• Video Learning Series
• What’s Coming Up
• Workforce Intelligence

How to Write a Synopsis of an Article: A Step-by-Step Guide

Feeling behind on ai.

You're not alone. The Neuron is a daily AI newsletter that tracks the latest AI trends and tools you need to know. Join 400,000+ professionals from top companies like Microsoft, Apple, Salesforce and more. 100% FREE.

Have you ever been tasked with writing a synopsis of an article and had no idea where to begin? Don't worry, you're not alone. A synopsis is a brief summary of an article, and can be an essential tool when trying to convey the main points of a lengthy piece of writing. In this guide, we'll walk you through the steps of creating a strong synopsis that effectively communicates the article's key takeaways.

Understanding the Purpose of a Synopsis

Before we dive into the specifics of writing a synopsis, it's important to first understand why they are so important. Synopses serve as a quick reference for busy readers who are unable to read the entire article. They also help to clarify the article's purpose and make it easier to analyze the author's arguments.

When it comes to reading articles or research papers, time is of the essence. Many readers are looking for specific information and don't have the luxury of reading an entire article from start to finish. This is where a synopsis comes in handy. It provides a brief overview of the article's main points, allowing readers to quickly determine whether or not the article is worth their time.

Why Synopses are Important

Synopses provide a concise summary of an article's main points, making it easier for readers to quickly grasp the author's intended message. They are also useful for researchers who are looking for specific information, as a synopsis can help them determine whether or not an article is relevant to their needs.

Moreover, synopses are essential for professionals who are constantly on the go. Business executives, for instance, may not have the time to read an entire report, but they need to be informed about the key takeaways. A synopsis provides them with a quick and easy way to get up to speed.

Different Types of Synopses

There are several different types of synopses, each catering to a different audience. For example, an executive summary is a type of synopsis that is aimed at business professionals, while an abstract is a synopsis that is typically used in academic writing. Regardless of the type of synopsis that you are writing, the same basic principles apply.

One type of synopsis that is gaining popularity is the social media synopsis. With the rise of social media, many readers are looking for bite-sized pieces of information that they can easily share with their followers. A social media synopsis provides a concise summary of an article's main points, making it easy for readers to share the information with their network.

In conclusion, synopses are an essential part of effective communication. They provide readers with a quick and easy way to understand an article's main points, making it easier for them to determine whether or not the article is relevant to their needs. By understanding the purpose and importance of synopses, you can create effective summaries that will engage and inform your readers.

Preparing to Write Your Synopsis

Now that we've covered the importance of synopses, let's dive into the steps involved in creating one.

Read the entire article thoroughly

Before you can begin writing your synopsis, you need to thoroughly read the article that you are summarizing. It's important to understand the author's intended message and the supporting arguments that are used to make that message. Take notes as you read, highlighting key points and information that will be useful when writing your synopsis.

Identify the main points and arguments

Once you've read the article, you need to identify the main points and arguments that the author is making. These will typically be found in the introduction and conclusion of the article, but you may also find them throughout the body of the text. It's important to identify all of the main points so that you can ensure that your synopsis accurately represents the author's message.

Take notes and outline the article's structure

In addition to identifying the main points, you should also take notes on the article's structure. This includes identifying subheadings and sections, as well as any transitions or supporting evidence that the author uses. By organizing your notes in this way, you can ensure that your synopsis accurately reflects the structure of the original article.

Writing a Strong Introduction for Your Synopsis

Now that you've prepared for writing your synopsis, it's time to dive into actually writing it. The beginning is a crucial aspect of your synopsis, as it sets the tone for the rest of the summary.

Hook the reader with a compelling opening

Just like a full-length article, the introduction of your synopsis should hook the reader and make them want to continue reading. This can be done by using a surprising statistic, an interesting anecdote, or a thought-provoking quote. Whatever method you choose, make sure that it grabs the reader's attention.

Introduce the article's main topic and purpose

After you've hooked the reader, it's important to provide context for the article. This means introducing the topic and purpose of the original article, as well as the main arguments that the author makes. By providing this information up front, you can ensure that the reader has a basic understanding of the article's message before diving deeper into the details.

Provide context and background information

Finally, it's important to provide context and background information for the article. This may include information on the author, the publication where the article appeared, and any relevant historical or societal context that helps to explain the article's message.

Summarizing the Article's Main Points

Once you've written a strong introduction for your synopsis, it's time to dive into the details. This is where you'll summarize the article's main points in a clear and concise manner.

Be concise and clear

When summarizing the article, it's important to be concise and clear. Use your notes from the article to identify the main points and supporting arguments, and present them in a way that accurately represents the original author's message. Avoid using lengthy quotes or unnecessarily wordy descriptions, as this can detract from the clarity of your summary.

Use your own words

While it's important to accurately represent the author's message, it's also important to use your own words when summarizing the article. This means avoiding copying entire sections of the article word for word, and instead rephrasing the author's arguments in a way that is both accurate and concise.

Maintain the original article's tone and style

Finally, it's important to maintain the tone and style of the original article when writing your synopsis. This means using the same type of language, voice, and style as the author, so that the reader can get a sense of the author's intended message.

ChatGPT Prompt for Writing a Synopsis of an Article

Use the following prompt in an AI chatbot . Below each prompt, be sure to provide additional details about your situation. These could be scratch notes, what you'd like to say or anything else that guides the AI model to write a certain way.

Please compose a concise and thorough summary of a written piece, including all relevant information and main points, in order to provide a clear understanding of the article's content.

[ADD ADDITIONAL CONTEXT. CAN USE BULLET POINTS.]

In conclusion, writing a synopsis of an article may seem like a daunting task, but by following these simple steps, you can create a summary that accurately represents the author's message and purpose. Remember to thoroughly read the article, identify the main points and arguments, and present them in a concise and clear manner. By doing so, you can create a synopsis that effectively communicates the article's key takeaways, and ensures that your readers are able to quickly and easily understand the author's intended message.

You Might Also Like...

How to write a travel article: a step-by-step guide, how to write a winning gofundme page.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Research synopsis writing

Related Papers

International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biological Science Archive

Mohammed Ismael Rushdi

An abstract is like a movie trailer. People will only consider reading the rest of the manuscript if they find your abstract interesting. It is an outline/brief summary of your paper and your whole project. Keywords: , research, descriptive and informative research.

Langley, BC: Trinity Western University. …

Paul T P Wong

Shubham Mishra

Alex Galarosa

William Schafer

The abstract serves two major purposes: it helps a person decide whether to read the paper, and it provides the reader with a framework for understanding the paper if they decide to read it. Thus, your abstract should describe the most important aspects of the study within the word-limit provided by the journal. As appropriate for your research, try to include a statement of the problem, the people you studied, the dependent and independent variables, the instruments, the design, major findings, and conclusions. If pressed for space, concentrate on the problem and,

UncleChew Bah

Parlindungan Pardede

Amir siddiqui

Hira Qureshi

Synopsis is a short summary of your Ph.D thesis work. This paper suggests some ideas to motivate the young researchers for effectively writing the Ph.D synopsis with essential tips and tricks.This can act as a reference and help young researcher to going to write Ph.D synopsis.

RELATED PAPERS

Sabbas Ignatius

Revue de Téhéran

Zeynab SADEGHI

angel alcala

Scientific Reports

Marsida Kallupi

martin groenewegen

Revista Magistro

Maria Benedita de Paula

Majalah Ilmiah Teknologi Elektro

Margareta Yuniari

Can Cimilli

Respectus Philologicus

Skirmante Sarkauskiene

Magnetic resonance imaging

Chih-Cheng Hung

Toxicology Letters

Bertrand Fougère

Hans Thore Løvaas

Information Processing Letters

Shalini Dhar

2008 Asia-Pacific Microwave Conference

Min-Chuan Lin

ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)

Orlando Jorge Martins Torres

Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc

felipe martinez

Revista Mexicana De Ciencias Agricolas

Luis mario Justiniano vargas

Revista Brasileira de Marketing

Marcelo Brandão

Polvo eres . Polvo eres. Poemas Colección del Banco Central de la República Dominicana. Santo Domingo. 2013.

Jeannette Miller

DEVI MARYENTI, S.Pd

Muhammad Irfan

Jane Bolger

The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation

Computer Communications

Mohammad Obaidat

Henning G. Schulzrinne

Main Group Metal Chemistry

Jacqueline Vaissermann

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Elite Editing

You write it. We right it.™

How to Write a Synopsis

If you’re a writer, you definitely need to know how to write a synopsis for a book. Why? Because when you query an agent or publisher, you’ll need to include a synopsis with your submission.

But writers aren’t the only people who need to know how to write a synopsis. From students to scientists, all kinds of people will find themselves having to write one at some point. Thankfully, the process isn’t complicated. By following a few basic steps and guidelines, you’ll know how to write a synopsis in no time.

What a Synopsis Is

Forget about how to write a synopsis. First, you need to know what a synopsis is! Put simply, a synopsis is a detailed summary of all the important aspects of a book, project, or study. There are different types of synopses, but a book synopsis briefly explains the key points from the plot as well as things like setting, characters, tone, and any important themes.

What a Synopsis Isn’t

Knowing how to write a synopsis for a book means knowing not just what a synopsis is, but what a synopsis isn’t. Below, we’ll discuss some other types of summaries that differ from synopses.

Synopsis vs. outline

It’s important to know the difference between a synopsis and an outline. An outline is like a “skeleton” for your book that you can create to help you write by then fleshing out your outline with details. A synopsis, on the other hand, is a complete summary of your book that you use to give agents and editors an in-depth, complete account of all the key details from beginning to end.

Synopsis vs. abstract

An abstract is a short and general book summary and doesn’t include every detail. The goal of an abstract is to give a brief and general summary of the book. A synopsis goes into every detail, with a deeper dive into specifics.

A good synopsis vs. abstract rule of thumb is to consider whether you need a very general summary or a specific and detailed one. If you need a detailed one, then you need to know how to write a synopsis.

Synopsis vs. pitch

When considering the question of synopsis vs. pitch, remember that a pitch is the shortest type of summary, and a synopsis is one of the longest. A pitch is designed to make your book sound appealing in just a few sentences, so it’s designed for maximum impact—sort of like a marketing tagline or log line. Pitches are quick and impactful, whereas synopses give all the important details.

Sometimes a synopsis is a dry, straight summary that is written for informational purposes rather than emotional impact. Other times, it is written to be entertaining and showcase the writer’s creative voice. This will depend on the target audience of your synopsis.

Types of Synopsis

There are several different types of synopses, depending on what you are writing about.

Project synopsis

A project synopsis is often used in science and engineering fields and summarizes a project’s goals, processes, and conclusions. It often starts with a statement summarizing the problem that the project aims to solve. It delves into methods used and other details that are important to the project, such as relevant details about the project’s participants.

Research synopsis

Of the three main types of synopses, research and project synopses are most often used by research and scientific institutions. Like a project synopsis, a research synopsis summarizes the problem or question the research is attempting to solve and then describes how the research was conducted.

Research synopses also give details on the researchers themselves, such as any relevant academic degrees they hold.

Literary synopsis

A literary synopsis is a synopsis of a work of fiction. It summarizes all the critical elements of a book so that an agent or publisher understands, to a high level of detail, what a book is about without having read it.

How to Write a Synopsis for Your Finished Manuscript in Five Easy Steps

• Make a list of your book’s key elements.  These include the most critical story and plot points, conflict, characters, settings, themes, and tone. For the plot, go through each chapter, and write down one to three of the most important plot developments from each. Then flesh out each item on your list with any other important details.
• Write a good opening sentence.  This should summarize your character, setting, and the immediate conflict, ensuring you make it clear what’s at stake. Then link together your detailed list from step 1 to form a first draft of your synopsis.
• Read through the synopsis.  Then add any details you may have forgotten. Also, look for details you included that are not critical—and cut them.
• Read through it again.  Ensure that the plot and character arcs are clearly defined.
• Give it a final edit and proofread. A one-page synopsis is often ideal, but publishers may request a synopsis of three to five pages or specify some other length.

That’s it! Now you know how to write a synopsis.

One-Page Synopsis

A one-page synopsis has to be even leaner than a three- or four-page synopsis, so it’s important that it contain only the most important details. If you find that your synopsis is too long, find ways to be more succinct, cutting out any information that isn’t absolutely critical to understanding the book. For example, did you describe characters that aren’t essential to the most important plot plots? Did you include details that do nothing to move the actual story along? Cut them out to strengthen—and shorten—your synopsis.

Once you know how to write a synopsis for a book, research project, or study, the process is the same every time. So whether you’re a budding novelist or a student working on an English-class project, use the information in this post to build a formula for writing different types of synopses.

Other Resources You Might Like

Crafting Timeless Content

Mastering the Art of Persuasive White Papers

Writing Effective Press Releases in a Digital Age

Get elite updates straight to your inbox..

• Content Writing
• Marketing and Sales Enablement
• Program Management
• AI Implementation

Who We Help

• Thought Leaders
• Cybersecurity
• Health Care
• Full-Time Careers
• Freelance Opportunities
• Press and Awards
• Success Stories
• About Elite

In the News

• Elite Creative Makes the Inc. 5000 for the Third Year in a Row

What Is a Synopsis and How Do You Write One?

What to Put In and What to Leave Out

• An Introduction to Punctuation
• Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
• M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
• B.A., English, State University of New York

In the 19th century, a synopsis was a classroom exercise used for teaching traditional grammar but today, the accepted definition of a synopsis is a general overview of an article, essay, story, book, or other written work. In the field of publishing, a synopsis may serve as a proposal for an article or book. In feature writing and other forms of nonfiction, a synopsis may also refer to a concise summary of a polemic argument or event. You might also find a synopsis included in a review or report.

Fast Facts: Synopsis

Pronunciation: si-NOP-sis

Etymology From the Greek, "general view"

Plural : synopses

Adjective : synoptic

Synopsis vs. Outline

Some people use the terms outline and synopsis synonymously and they really are very similar. When it comes to fiction, however, the distinction is more clearcut. While each may contain similar information, a synopsis is an overview that summarizes the main plot points of the work, whereas an outline functions as a structural tool that breaks the plot down into its component parts.

If you think of it in terms of a novel, the synopsis would be similar to the book jacket copy that tells you who the characters are and what happens to them. It usually also gives readers a feeling for the tone, genre, and theme of the work. An outline would be more akin to a page of chapter listings (provided the author has titled the chapters rather than just numbering them) which functions as a map that leads the reader from the beginning of a literary journey to its final destination or denouement.

In addition to crucial information, a synopsis often includes a thematic statement. Again, thinking in terms of fiction, it would identify the genre and even subgenre, for example, a romance Western, a murder mystery, or a dystopic fantasy and would also reveal something of the tone of the work—whether dark or humorous, erotic or terrifying.

What to Include and What to Leave Out

Since a synopsis is a condensation of the original material, a writer must be sure to include the most important details so that the reader will be able to fully comprehend what the work is about. Sometimes, it's hard to know what to put in and what to leave out. Writing a summary requires critical thinking . You're going to have to analyze the original material and decide what the most important information is.

A synopsis isn't about style or details, it's about supplying enough information for your audience to easily understand and categorize the work. A few brief examples might be permissible, but numerous examples, dialogues, or extensive quotations have no place in a synopsis. Do, however, keep your synopsis true to the plot and timeline of the original story.

Synopses for Non-Fiction Stories

The purpose of a synopsis for a work of nonfiction is to serve as a condensed version of an event, a controversy, a point of view, or background report. Your job as a writer is to include enough basic information so that a reader can easily identify what the story is about and understand its tone. While detailed information is important when telling the larger story, only the information crucial to comprehending the "who, what, when, where, and why" of an event, proposal, or argument is necessary for the synopsis.

Again, as with fiction, the tone and the eventual outcome of your story will also likely come into play in your summary. Choose your phrasing judiciously. Your goal is to use as a few words as possible to achieve maximum impact without leaving out so much information that your reader ends up confused.

• Fernando, Jovita N., Habana, Pacita I., and Cinco, Alicia L. "New Perspectives in English One." Rex, 2006
• Kennedy, X.J., Kennedy, Dorothy M., and Muth, Marcia F. "The Bedford Guide for College Writers." Ninth Edition. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2011
• Brooks, Terri. " Words' Worth: A Handbook on Writing and Selling Nonfiction ." St. Martin's Press, 1989
• How to Write a Great Book Report
• An Introduction to Literary Nonfiction
• What Is Literary Journalism?
• How to Summarize a Plot
• Conciseness for Better Composition
• How to Write an Abstract
• What Is a Novel? Definition and Characteristics
• Genres in Literature
• Third-Person Point of View
• Interior Monologues
• Definition and Examples of Narratives in Writing
• Defining Nonfiction Writing
• How to Write a Narrative Essay or Speech
• Book Report: Definition, Guidelines, and Advice
• The Essay: History and Definition

Looking to publish? Meet your dream editor, designer and marketer on Reedsy.

Find the perfect editor for your next book

1 million authors trust the professionals on Reedsy. Come meet them.

Blog • Understanding Publishing

Posted on Sep 12, 2018

How to Write an Incredible Synopsis in 4 Simple Steps

Your novel is fully written, edited, and polished to perfection — you’re ready to pitch it to agents! But you’re missing a critical piece of persuasion: the synopsis. Even after putting together your entire book, you may have no idea how to write one, or even how to approach it.

Luckily, we’ve got answers for you. Read on for our best tips on writing a synopsis that’s clear, concise, captivating… and may even lead to an all-out agent battle over your novel!

What is a synopsis?

A synopsis is a summary of a book that familiarizes the reader with the plot and how it unfolds. Although these kinds of summaries also appear on the pages of school book reports and Wikipedia, this guide will focus on constructing one that you can send out to agents (and eventually publishers).

Your novel synopsis should achieve two things: firstly, it should convey the contents of your book, and secondly, it should be intriguing!

While you don’t need to pull out all the marketing stops at this stage, you should have a brief hook at the beginning and a sense of urgency underlying the text that will keep your reader going. It should make potential agents want to devour your whole manuscript — even though they’ll already know what happens.

While writing your synopsis, make sure that it includes:

• A complete narrative arc
• Your own voice and unique elements of your story
• The ending or resolution ( unlike in a blurb )

As for the ideal length for this piece, it varies from project to project. Some authors recommend keeping it to 500 words, while others might write thousands. However, the standard range is about one to two single-spaced pages (or two to five double-spaced pages). And if you're interested in knowing how to format the whole of your manuscript for submission, we recommend downloading this manuscript format template. 

FREE RESOURCE

Manuscript Format Template

Get your manuscript ready for submission to agents and publishers.

You may also want to have an additional “brief” summary prepared for agents who specifically request a single page or less. Remember: as hard as it will be to distill all your hard work into that minimal space, it’s crucial to keep your synopsis digestible and agent-friendly.

How to write a novel synopsis in 4 steps

1. Get the basics down first

When it comes to writing a synopsis, substance is the name of the game. No matter how nicely you dress it up, an agent will disregard any piece that doesn’t demonstrate a fully fleshed out plot and strong narrative arc. So it stands to reason that as you begin writing, you should focus on the fundamentals.

Start with major plot points

Naturally, you want agents to be aware of your story's  major plot points . So the best way to start summarizing your story is to create a list of those plot points, including:

• The inciting incident — what sparks the central conflict of your story?
• The events of the rising action — what happens in the interlude between the inciting incident and the climax, and how does this build tension?
• The height of the action, or climax , of your story — this one is the most important, as it should be the most exciting part of your book!
• The resolution or ending — again, unlike a blurb, a synopsis doesn’t need to dangle the carrot of an unknown ending to the reader; you can and should reveal your story’s ending here, as this brings the plot and narrative arc to a close.

Listing these points effectively maps out the action and arc of your story, which will enable the reader to easily follow it from beginning to end.

Include character motivations

The key here is not to get too deep into characterization, since you don’t have much room to elaborate. Instead, simply emphasize character motivations at the beginning and end of your synopsis — first as justification for the inciting incident, then again to bring home the resolution. For example:

Beginning: “Sally has spent the past twenty years wondering who her birth parents are [motivation]. When a mysterious man offers her the chance to find them, she spontaneously buys a ticket to Florence to begin her journey [inciting action].”

Ending: “She returns to the US with the man who was her father all along [resolution], safe in the knowledge that she’ll never have to wonder about him again [restated motivation].”

Also note how the text here is written in third person, present tense, as it should be regardless of the tense or POV of your actual book. Writing a synopsis in first or second person doesn’t really work because it’s not meant to be narrated — just summarized. Basically, the present tense works to engage the reader while the third person allows the story to be told smoothly.

Query Submissions Tracker

Stay organized on your journey to find the right agent or publisher.

2. Highlight what’s unique

Now it’s time to spice up your synopsis by highlighting the elements that make it unique. Agents need to know what’s so special about your book in particular — and moreover, is it special enough to get readers to pick it up? Below are some features you might employ to grab an agent’s attention and assure them of your book’s appeal.

Your writing voice is an essential tool here: it conveys your novel’s tone and is one of the most important factors in making your work stand out. However, it’s also one of the most difficult elements to evoke in such a small amount of space.

The best way to capture voice in a synopsis is through extremely deliberate word choice and sentence structure. So if you were Jane Austen, you’d use clever words to magnify your wit: “When Darcy proposes to her apropos of nothing, Elizabeth has the quite understandable reaction of rejecting him.” You may not be able to use all the elaborate prose of your novel, but your synopsis should still reflect its overall feeling.

Plot twists

Even though they’re one of the oldest tricks in the book, readers will never tire of juicy plot twists. If your novel contains one or more of these twists, especially at the climax, make sure your synopsis accentuates it. But don’t hint too much at the twist, as this will make it seem more dramatic when it comes; a couple of words in the intro will suffice as foreshadowing.

For instance, if you were writing a summary of Gone Girl , you might open with “Nick Dunne wakes up one morning to find that his wife, Amy, has apparently disappeared. ” This implies that she may not be as “gone” as we think she is, setting the stage for the later reveal.

Point of view

Another aspect that might set your book apart is a distinctive point of view . Since you’ll be giving your synopsis in third person, you can limit this inclusion to an introductory sentence: “This book is narrated from the point of view of a mouse.”

Although this strategy works best for books with a highly unusual point of view (such as The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, in which the story is told by Death), it can also be very helpful to remember for seemingly bog-standard narrators. If one of your characters narrates in first person, make sure to address their individual narrative quirks as well as any biases or limitations; highlighting an unreliable narrator can really add to your novel’s intrigue!

3. Edit for clarity and excess

Don’t shroud your synopsis in mystery; this is very frustrating to agents who just want to know what happens in your book! With that in mind, after you’ve written the bulk of your summary, it’s time to edit for clarity. You also may have to delete some text, so you can get it right in that couple-page sweet spot.

Editing for clarity

The paramount rule of synopses is a real doozy: tell, don’t show. It’s the opposite of that classic adage that writers have heard their whole lives, and it’s exactly what you need to write a successful synopsis. 

As you return to what you’ve written, scan for sentences that are vague or unclear, especially toward the beginning. Many writers fall into the trap of trying to hook agents by opening with a sentence akin to the first murky line of a literary novel. Again, though you do want your intro to be intriguing, it has to cut to the chase pretty quickly.

When it comes to opening a synopsis, you need to think like Tolkien, not Tolstoy. “In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit.” Crisp, clear, and to the point: one of the very few times you should tell, rather than show .

Editing excess words

If your synopsis is longer than a couple of pages at this point, you need make some serious cutbacks. Read through what you have, scrutinizing every sentence and word, even if you think you’ve chosen them carefully. Reduce any run-on sentences or subordinate clauses that unnecessarily lengthen your piece.

Finally, eliminate irrelevant details — anything that doesn’t lead to the next plot point or directly contribute to your voice or other distinctive elements. It’s unlikely you’ll have included any of these in the first place, but just in case they’ve slipped through, cut them. Save the frills for your book; remember, your synopsis is all about substance .

4. Make sure it flows

By the time it’s finished, your synopsis should read like a summary from an excellent book review — or at the very least SparkNotes or Shmoop. This means not only clearly and concisely hitting every important point, but also reading in a smooth manner, placing just the right amount of emphasis on the critical moments and unique aspects we’ve discussed.

Get test readers

A great way to ensure that your synopsis is paced precisely and flows well is to give it to test readers, either someone you know or a professional editor . You’ve spent way too much time with these words to be objective about them, so pay attention to what other people suggest: possible word substitutions, transitions, and which details to emphasize versus delete.

Use professional synopses as models

You don’t want to look at examples of other synopses too soon, otherwise yours will come out sounding formulaic and stale. That said, professional synopses can be a very valuable tool for refining toward the end of the process! Compare and contrast them to the synopsis you’ve written, and adapt any techniques or turns of phrase you feel would enhance it.

Here’s an example of a strong (albeit brief) synopsis of Great Expectations by Charles Dickens , courtesy of the Oxford Companion to English Literature:

Phillip Pirrip, more commonly known as “Pip,” has been brought up by his tyrannical sister, wife of the gentle Joe Gargery. He is introduced to the house of Miss Havisham who, half-crazed by the desertion of her lover on her bridal night, has brought up the girl Estella to use her beauty as a means of torturing men. Pip falls in love with Estella and aspires to become a gentleman.

Money and expectations of more wealth come to him from a mysterious source, which he believes to be Miss Havisham. He goes to London, and in his new mode of life meanly abandons the devoted Joe Gargery, a humble connection of whom he is now ashamed.

Misfortunes come upon him. His benefactor proves to be an escaped convict, Abel Magwich, whom he as a boy had helped. Pip’s great expectations fade away and he is penniless. Estella meanwhile marries his sulky enemy Bentley Drummle, by whom she is cruelly ill treated.

In the end, taught by adversity, Pip returns to Joe Gargery and honest labor. He and Estella, who has also learnt her lesson, are finally reunited.

This synopsis works well because it includes:

• The inciting incident (Pip moving in with Miss Havisham), the rising action (him being in London), the climax (returning to Joe Gargery), and the resolution (reuniting with Estella)
• Character motivations (Miss Havisham wants to punish all men because her fiancé betrayed her; Pip wants to become a gentleman so Estella will fall in love with him)
• A plot twist (Pip’s benefactor being a criminal — whom he knows from his childhood!)
• Distinctive voice (formal yet engaging, doesn’t detract from the plot) and smoothly written style (events are chronological and progress quickly)

Your synopsis is one of the biggest deciding factors in whether an agent wants to see more from you or not. No matter how chipper your query letter , the bottom line is that this summary tells agents (and later publishers) what they really need to know: what your book is about, what makes it unique, and most importantly, if they can sell it. 

FREE COURSE

How to Write a Query Letter

Learn to grab agents’ attention with 10 five-minute lessons.

That’s why it’s vital that you make your synopsis airtight. Fortunately, if you’ve followed these steps, yours will be chock full of plot details with a touch of your own special writing sauce: a synopsis that any agent (hopefully) won’t be able to resist. 

Many thanks to Reedsy editors (and former agents) Sam Brody and Rachel Stout  for consulting on this piece!

Do you have any tips for writing an irresistible synopsis? Leave them in the comments below!

2 responses

Elizabeth Westra says:

12/09/2018 – 22:10

This looks interesting, and I will read every word, but this would be different for a picture book. You only get one page to query for many children's books.

Dorothy Potter Snyder says:

14/10/2018 – 20:11

I am curious if anyone has ideas on how translators can write a synopsis for agents / publishers of works in translation? Might there be something about why this author is important in his/her country of origin and literary tradition? Which authors more known to English language readers might relate to this author (they've never heard of before)?

Comments are currently closed.

Continue reading

Recommended posts from the Reedsy Blog

How to Publish a Book For Free: The 7 Best Sites

If you want to publish your book without spending a single dime, check out this handy list of 7 free self-publishing services.

5 Ways to Save on Your Self-Publishing Budget

If you want to self-publish a book without breaking the bank, here are 5 tips to ensure you still get the best result possible.

30 Great Book Dedication Examples to Inspire Your Own

A list of 30 of the best book dedications in the business, that'll have you crying, laughing, and crying laughing.

Expository Writing: The Craft of Sharing Information

Expository writing is a fundamental part of how we learn and make sense of the world. Learn all about it in this post.

Additional Reviews: Query Critique December 2024

Additional critiques from Reedsy's December 2024 query letter session.

How to Make Money by Writing Books: 8 Tips for Success

If you want to be an author who makes a living from books, here are eight tips to help you make money as a writer.

Join a community of over 1 million authors

Reedsy is more than just a blog. Become a member today to discover how we can help you publish a beautiful book.

Bring your publishing dreams to life

The world's best freelance editors, designers, and marketers are on Reedsy. Sign up for free and meet them TODAY.

1 million authors trust the professionals on Reedsy. Come meet them.

Enter your email or get started with a social account:

• The Scientist University

How to Write a Good Introduction Section

A strong narrative is as integral a part of science writing as it is for any other form of communication..

Nathan Ni holds a PhD from Queens University. He is a science editor for The Scientist’s Creative Services Team who strives to better understand and communicate the relationships between health and disease.

View full profile.

Learn about our editorial policies.

First impressions are important. Scientists need to make their work stand out among a sea of others. However, many mistakenly believe that first impressions are formed based only on titles and abstracts. In actuality, the introduction section is critical to making a real impression on the audience. The introduction is where authors outline their research topic and describe their study. It is where they provide background information and showcase their writing and argumentation styles. For these reasons, the introduction engages the audience in a deeper way than the formalities and rigidities of the title and abstract can afford. To use a fishing analogy: if the title and the abstract serve as the hook and the bait, then the introduction is the process of actually reeling the fish into the boat.

Good Introductions Are Important Guides

In contrast to the constraints placed on the title and abstract, the introduction is the first real opportunity for the scientist to engage with their audience and showcase and convey their passions and motivations for the study in question. This opportunity is somewhat of a double-edged sword. Study authors inevitably have a treasure trove of knowledge and expertise when it comes to their projects and their fields. However, they must remember that the audience does not necessarily have this background information—and that they are only engaging with their audience for a finite amount of time. Despite the urge to excitedly write about all of the different aspects and intricacies of the project, it is very important that authors keep their introductions simple and well organized. 

Therefore, the introduction should move from broad scopes to narrow focuses as the audience reads further. The author should direct the reader along this journey, focusing on topics with direct relevance to what was investigated in the study. A broad fact introduced early on should be linked or paired with a more specific fact along the same lines of thought, eventually culminating in how this information led to the motivation behind the study itself. It is vital to not go off on tangents or talk about things that are too esoteric. A confused audience is an audience that tends not to read further.

Applying Common Principles Across Well-Known and Niche Subjects

Writers can apply these principles in more specialized manuscripts focusing on a single entity rather than a well-known pathology. Consider the following example from a manuscript by cell biologist Luis R. Cruz-Vera’s research team from the University of Alabama in Huntsville, published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry. 1

Here, they divide the opening paragraph of their introduction into four distinct sections. First, they explain what ribosome arresting peptides (RAPs) are and what they do.

Ribosome arresting peptides (RAPs) are nascent polypeptides that act in cis on the translating ribosome to control the expression of genes by inducing ribosome arrest during translation elongation or termination. RAPs commonly sense external forces or low molecular weight compounds in the environment that spatially and temporally contribute to the expression of genes. 

Then they introduce the two different types of RAPs.

RAPs such as SecM that sense external forces on the ribosome are typically large, because these nascent peptides have a domain that functions outside of the ribosome. In contrast, those that sense small molecules inside of the ribosome, such as TnaC are smaller. 

They describe how each type works via a different mechanism.

Typically, larger RAPs interact with cellular factors that can control their capacity for arresting ribosomes. Because of their size and proximity to ribosomal components, large RAPs clearly show two structural domains, a sensor domain and an arresting domain. At the moment of the arrest for the large RAPs, the sensor domain is located outside the ribosome exit tunnel, whereas the arresting domain remains inside the tunnel. The short RAPs currently characterized interact with the compounds that they sense by using the ribosome exit tunnel as a binding surface. For these short RAPs, it has been determined that conserved amino acid residues are necessary to induce arrest by either directly binding the effector molecule or by acting at the peptidyl-transferase center (PTC) during ribosome arrest. 

And finally, they conclude by highlighting a knowledge gap in how small RAPs operate versus what is already known about large RAPs.

However, because the size of short RAPs ranges from only a few to a couple of dozen amino acids, as in the case of TnaC, it has remained unclear whether short RAPs are constituted by the two independent sensor and stalling domains, as it has been observed with larger RAPs.

In this way, the authors make a natural progression from “why this topic is important” to “what is known about this topic,” setting the stage for “what is unknown about this topic and why it should be studied.” 

Gradually Moving from Broad to Narrow

These principles can be further transferred towards the introductory section as a whole. The first paragraph should serve as an introduction to the field and the topic. The middle paragraph(s) provide exposition and detail regarding what is known and unknown, and what has already been done and still remains to do, and the final paragraph outlines the study and its principle findings, providing a transition into either the materials and methods or the results section. 

For example, this work by radiation oncologist Eric Deutsch’s group at Université Paris-Saclay, published in PLoS One , 2 opens by succinctly explaining a scientific problem: “ the threat of extensive dispersion of radioactive isotopes within populated areas that would have an unfortunate effect on human health has increased drastically .” It then offers the call to action necessitated by this problem: “ the development of a decorporating agent capable of effectively mitigating the effects of a wide range of isotopes is critical .”

In the next two paragraphs, the study authors provide information on how and why dispersion of radioactive isotopes are a problem—“ the FDA has approved only three compounds (only one of which is used as a preventative therapy) for the treatment of exposure to specific radioactive elements ”—and highlights the strengths and weaknesses of what is currently available. They then introduce the focal point of their own work, chitosan@DOTAGA, within this context, explaining its potential as a solution to the problem they previously introduced: “ After oral administration to rodents over several days, no signs of acute or chronic toxicity were observed, and DOTAGA did not enter the blood stream and was fully eliminated from the gastrointestinal tract within 24 hours of administration. ”

Finally, the introduction concludes by listing the study objective—“ explore the potential of this polymer for use in the decorporation of a wide range of radioactive isotopes ”—and the motivations and rationale behind the study objective—“ there are no suitable countermeasures available for uranium poisoning. […] This innovative approach aims to directly chelate the radioactive cations, specifically uranium, within the gastrointestinal tract prior to their systemic absorption, which ensures their prompt elimination and mitigation of the associated toxicities. ”

The Introduction Engages with the Reader

The introduction section is often overlooked in favor of the title and the abstract, but it serves two important functions. First, it gives the audience all of the information that it needs to contextualize the yet-to-be-presented data within the context of the problem that needs to be solved or the scientific question that needs to be addressed. Second, and more importantly, it justifies the importance of the study, of its initiative, rationale, and purpose. The introduction is the author’s best—and arguably only real—opportunity to convince the audience that their study is worth reading.  

Looking for more information on scientific writing? Check out  The Scientist’s   TS SciComm  section. Looking for some help putting together a manuscript, a figure, a poster, or anything else?    The Scientist’s   Scientific Services  may have the professional help that you need.

• Judd HNG, et al. Functional domains of a ribosome arresting peptide are affected by surrounding nonconserved residues . J Biol Chem . 2024;300(3):105780.
• Durand A, et al. Enhancing radioprotection: A chitosan-based chelating polymer is a versatile radioprotective agent for prophylactic and therapeutic interventions against radionuclide contamination . PLoS One . 2024;19(4):e0292414.

Related community Research Resources

Building a Scientific Narrative

Where Books Meet Bacteria

The Fundamentals of Academic Science Writing

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Equivalent user experience and improved community augmented meta-analyses knowledge for a new version of a Plain Language Summary guideline

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID), Trier, Germany

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

• Mark Jonas, 
• Martin Kerwer, 
• Marlene Stoll, 
• Gesa Benz, 
• Anita Chasiotis

• Published: May 9, 2024
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

Plain Language Summaries (PLS) offer a promising solution to make meta-analytic psychological research more accessible for non-experts and laypeople. However, existing writing guidelines for this type of publication are seldom grounded in empirical studies. To address this and to test two versions of a new PLS guideline, we investigated the impact of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses on laypeoples’ PLS-related knowledge and their user experience (accessibility, understanding, empowerment). In a preregistered online-study, N = 2,041 German-speaking participants read two PLSs. We varied the inclusion of a disclaimer on PLS authorship, a statement on the causality of effects, additional information on community augmented meta-analyses (CAMA) and the PLS guideline version. Results partially confirmed our preregistered hypotheses: Participants answered knowledge items on CAMA more correctly when a PLS contained additional information on CAMA, and there were no user experience differences between the old and the new guideline versions. Unexpectedly, a priori hypotheses regarding improved knowledge via the use of a disclaimer and a causality statement were not confirmed. Reasons for this, as well as general aspects related to science communication via PLSs aimed at educating laypeople, are discussed.

Citation: Jonas M, Kerwer M, Stoll M, Benz G, Chasiotis A (2024) Equivalent user experience and improved community augmented meta-analyses knowledge for a new version of a Plain Language Summary guideline. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0300675. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675

Editor: Jessecae Marsh, Lehigh University, UNITED STATES

Received: September 25, 2023; Accepted: March 1, 2024; Published: May 9, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Jonas et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are available in the paper and its Supporting Information files. Additionally, the dataset, codebook, complete R markdown, and shortened R markdown are available at the following DOIs: https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14218 , https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14219 .

Funding: The study was funded by internal ZPID funds. All authors were employed at the ZPID during the runtime of the study. The authors received no additional grants or specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Communicating the main points of a study or research article to individuals without a scientific background is often challenging. Research articles frequently include methodological details or scientific jargon unfamiliar to laypeople [ 1 ]. Plain Language Summaries (PLSs) offer one possible solution to this issue: As comprehensible, lay-friendly summaries of research, they aim to make research findings accessible for the general public and to improve scientific understanding. So far, PLSs have mostly been applied in the medical field [ 2 ], but may also have potential for other fields, such as psychology. However, empirically validated guidelines for writing PLSs of psychological research are lacking and guidance on writing PLSs is based on empirical studies in very few cases only [ 3 ]. To our knowledge, this lack of empirical studies particularly applies to PLSs on psychological meta-analyses. Yet, an empirical base for communicating the aggregated, higher level evidence of meta-analyses seems especially crucial. To address this issue, a new writing guideline for psychological PLSs (the KLARpsy guideline [ 4 ]) has been developed at the Leibniz Institute for Psychology (ZPID) and published in an open access repository. In the context of project”PLan Psy”, several experimental studies were conducted to validate older versions of the guideline [ 5 , 6 ]. The objective is to make PLSs of psychological meta-analyses based on this guideline freely available to the German public as part of the information service “KLARpsy” (hence the guideline name; “Klar” is the German word for “clear” or “plain”). To that end, PLSs will be made available at the website klarpsy.de, starting in October 2023. The guideline may also serve other researchers interested in communicating scientific psychology to the public. Guideline development was subject to an iterative improvement process, during which user feedback from qualitative studies [ 7 ] and from an expert survey [ 8 ] led us to add new elements to the initial version of the guideline. These elements included more detailed information on the authorship of the PLSs and meta-analyses, a statement on the causality of effects and information on community-augmented meta-analyses (CAMA). However, since our intention is to write PLSs according to a guideline with a strong empirical basis, our aim was to compare both guidelines in a large experimental study with regard to PLSs user-relevant outcomes. Furthermore, since empirical research on PLS guidelines or writing criteria is still rare, this may be even more true for studies systematically comparing individual PLS versions based on different guidelines or guideline versions [ 3 ]. Even if a PLSs guideline has already been developed to an advanced stage, further adjustments should ideally be empirically tested in a large target group sample. Otherwise, it is not possible to rule out that changes are merely implemented based on idiosyncratic opinions and do not take reader interests and needs into account.

The study presented here therefore specifically aims to contrast an older version of the guideline with a new and revised version based on user feedback and an expert survey. Following preregistration (available via PsychArchives under the following link: https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8251 ), it was conducted online and systematically varied 1) whether a disclaimer on the extent of evaluation provided by the PLSs’ authors was included in the PLS, 2) whether a causality statement containing additional information on the causal interpretation of effects was included in the PLS, 3) whether additional information on Community Augmented Meta-Analyses (CAMA) were available and 4) whether PLSs were created based on a new or old guideline version .

Outcomes include several knowledge items, e.g. on the relationship between PLS and meta-analyses or on the extent of evaluation carried out by PLS authors regarding the original study. Furthermore, readers’ user experience (accessibility, understanding, empowerment), their perceived epistemic trustworthiness of meta-analyses authors as well as PLS authors, their perceptions regarding the credibility of the presented evidence and the perceived personal relevance of research findings were examined.

So far, empirical evidence on whether laypeople can distinctly differentiate between the two formats of an original meta-analysis and a subsequent PLS is scarce. Ideally, laypeople should be able to grasp that a PLS summarizes findings of a more extensive research work in an accessible manner for an audience not exclusively rooted in science. Knowledge of this fact is relevant for multiple reasons: First, PLSs may be written by third-party authors not involved in the original studies. These third-party authors may emphasize different aspects of a main study’s results in their PLS, e.g. by highlighting them more prominently or mentioning them first. For example, authors may be more inclined to spotlight treatment outcomes for one particular approach of psychotherapy compared to other approaches, depending on their work approach or therapeutic background. And second, PLSs often aim to concisely convey the key points of a study. However, this may come with the potential risk of leaving out more specific information (e.g. the effectiveness of a therapy approach for a specific subgroup or higher-level interaction effects). Both issues may nudge readers’ process of informed decision-making in a certain direction. With this in mind, is there a way of supporting laypeople in grasping author differences between an original study and its subsequent PLS? One possible solution could be to explicitly state the difference between the two formats via a disclaimer. This disclaimer could outline the purpose of a PLS and its relation to the original study, the extent to which a PLS evaluates the quality and rigor of the original study (see H2) and provide details on PLS authors (see H3). We assume that including such a disclaimer in a PLS will support laypeople in comprehending how the PLS and meta-analysis relate to each other, and thus expect the following effects:

H1a : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the relationship between PLS and meta-analysis compared to a PLS based on the old guideline.

H1b : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the relationship between PLS and meta-analysis compared to a PLS based on the new guideline without a disclaimer.

By default, laypeople could also assume that PLSs are only written for high-quality studies or that the content of the original meta-analyses was specifically evaluated or replicated by the PLS authors or organizations offering PLSs. This “Trust Heuristic” [ 9 ] may enable readers to quickly make trust decisions. Yet, it may also lead to misconceptions about the extent of evaluation carried out in the context of the PLS. For example, PLSs in the project “PLan Psy” typically did not evaluate the rigor or correctness of meta-analytic procedures in detail, and also did not carry out replications. In a worst case scenario, laypeople may however assume that such an evaluation took place, which could result in an incorrect assessment of the generalizability of meta-analytic findings presented. Ultimately, this may again influence them in their informed decision-making. Providing laypeople with the above-mentioned disclaimer may help them to more accurately assess the conclusions that can and cannot be drawn from PLSs. Following this, we propose:

H2a : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the extent of evaluation compared to a PLS based on the old guideline.

H2b : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the extent of evaluation compared to a PLS based on the new guideline without a disclaimer.

Previous research demonstrated that laypeople often vary with regard to how much attention they pay to sources of scientific claims to evaluate information [ 10 ]. For instance, Barzilai et al. [ 11 ] summarize multiple previous studies and point out that laypeople can distinguish between different types of sources, but that especially novices rarely consider source features. When applying these findings to the format of PLSs, the following question emerges: Are laypeople able to grasp that PLS can stem from an additional set of independent authors who did not conduct the original meta-analysis [ 12 ]? Given the fact that source features are rarely considered, this may be challenging to comprehend. Readers may simply assume that both texts stem from the researchers of the original meta-analysis. However, this assumption may pose risks, such as failing to grasp that a different set of authors may influence the level of priority given to particular results. A solution for this could be to once again draw on the above-mentioned disclaimer to make authorship differences salient. We assume that including this information will help to highlight differences in authorship for lay readers and thus expect the following:

H3a : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the differentiation between PLS and meta-analysis authors compared to a PLS based on the old guideline.

H3b : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains a disclaimer, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the differentiation between PLS and meta-analysis authors compared to a PLS based on the new guideline.

When confronted with research summaries, it may pose a challenge for laypeople to differentiate between correlational (e.g., studied in cross-sectional studies) and causal (e.g., studied in randomized controlled experiments) relationships between two variables. Not differentiating between these relations can be problematic, as it can give rise to logical fallacies such as “cum hoc ergo propter hoc” [ 13 ] and render readers prone to draw incorrect conclusions (e.g., assuming that more sports automatically leads to higher well-being when the effects, in reality, can also be explained by the fact that people who feel better will do more sports than people who feel worse). Laypeople may potentially benefit from additional explanations on the causality of effects in the context of PLSs, and may thus be able to more correctly grasp the reported association between two variables. As such, we propose:

H4a : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains additional information on causality, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the causality of effects compared to a PLS based on the old guideline.

H4b : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains additional information on causality, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning the causality of effects compared to a PLS based on the new guideline.

Community-Augmented Meta-Analyses (CAMA) [ 14 ] refer to an approach where a meta-analysis’ data-base is stored in an open-access repository. As such, the base of the analysis is dynamic and can be expanded on by community input even after the original analysis has been carried out. In addition, the analysis can quickly be replicated via a graphical user-interface and online analysis tools. In comparison to a traditional meta-analysis, this allows for a more dynamic approach to replication and helps to create “living evidence” [ 15 ]. This may offer benefits for laypeoples’ decision-making process. Normally, a meta-analysis’ sample remains set after publication, cannot be dynamically updated and may therefore no longer represent the current state of research, as new study results become available. Relying on CAMA benefits laypeople in that they are more likely to receive up-to-date results and in that they can check effects for their consistency. However, laypeople are likely unaware of the particular features of CAMA in comparison to a more traditional form of meta-analyses. As such, it seems worthwhile to examine how their awareness and knowledge of this particular form of meta-analysis can be increased. Providing them with additional information on CAMA in the context of a PLS should have a positive impact on their knowledge gain. We therefore hypothesize the following:

H5a : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains additional information on CAMA, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning CAMA compared to a regular PLS based on the old guideline.

H5b : If a PLS based on the new guideline contains additional information on CAMA, readers will score significantly higher on a knowledge item concerning CAMA compared to a regular PLS based on the new guideline.

As mentioned above, a new KLARpsy guideline version was created based on an old KLARpsy guideline version. The old version constitutes a pilot version [ 16 ] and was compiled based on the results of a systematic literature review by Stoll et al. [ 3 ] and an initial study by Kerwer, Chasiotis, et al. [ 17 ]. This version was subsequently evaluated by experts with a background in science communication, meta-analyses and/or psychological publishing [ 8 ] and was revised based on their feedback to create the new version of the guideline [ 18 ]. While the new version contains some additional information (e.g. the disclaimer on the extent of evaluation or information on causality), other aspects of the guideline were streamlined. As such, laypeoples’ user experience (i.e., their ratings of accessibility, understanding and empowerment, see Kerwer, Stoll, et al. [ 5 ]) while reading PLSs based on the new version of the guideline should not be inferior to the experience of reading PLSs based on the old guideline. We hence assume:

H6 : Reading a PLS based on the new guideline will yield a significant non-inferiority test on user experience compared to reading a PLS based on the old guideline.

In addition to these confirmatory hypotheses, some exploratory research questions mainly informed by user feedback from our previous studies were also of interest. How research is funded constitutes an important information for laypeople, in that it directly informs their judgements of epistemic trustworthiness and “second hand evaluations” of science [ 19 ]. For instance, laypeople tend to show increased vigilance towards scientists if they are funded by private companies in comparison to public institutions [ 20 ]. Findings from the science barometer 2022 [ 21 ], a representative German population survey, show that 56% of participants agreed to dependency on funders as a reason to mistrust scientists. Both versions of the KLARpsy guideline explicitly stated how the meta-analysis was funded, yet the exact information surrounding the funding statement was slightly changed. As such, we were interested in potential knowledge differences regarding funding between them.

RQ1 : Will scores on a knowledge item concerning funding differ if readers receive a PLS based on the new guideline compared to a PLS based on the old guideline?

Taking the line of thought regarding funding information one step further, it seems especially crucial to inform laypeople about conflicts of interest (COI) that could affect the quality of evidence and contribute to the distortion of meta-analytic results. Indeed, this is already an established practice in existing guidelines [ 22 ]. Evidence suggests that laypeople do take conflict of interest, such as financial motives, into account when presented with scientific claims by increasing their epistemic vigilance and adjusting their assessments of epistemic trustworthiness (see Gierth & Bromme [ 23 ]). Both guideline versions included statements on COI, yet once again the exact position and wording was adjusted between guidelines. We hence aimed to investigate if these changes had any influence on laypeoples’ knowledge regarding COI.

RQ2 : Will scores on a knowledge item concerning conflict of interest differ if readers receive a PLS based on the new guideline compared to a PLS based on the old guideline?

Epistemic Trustworthiness can be defined as a special form of trust centered around knowledge and knowledge gain [ 24 ]. Existing research on trustworthiness measures such as the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory [ 25 ] typically distinguishes three aspects of epistemic trustworthiness, namely expertise (the perceived ability/competence of a source in a particular field), integrity (a source’s adherence to scientific standards and professional rules of conduct) and benevolence (a source’s selflessness and interest in others’ well-being). When examining trustworthiness in the context of our two guideline versions, two lines of investigation seem worthwhile. First, it may be interesting to determine if trustworthiness differences emerge between the original meta-analysis authors depending on the guideline version. And second, the same question can also be examined with regard to the PLS authors who edited the original meta-analyses. The two following research questions were thus examined:

RQ3a : Will differences in the METI ratings of PLS authors (Expertise, Integrity, Benevolence) emerge if readers receive a PLS based on the new guideline compared to a PLS based on the old guideline?

RQ3b : Will differences in the METI ratings of meta-analysis researchers (Expertise, Integrity, Benevolence) emerge if readers receive a PLS based on the new guideline compared to a PLS based on the old guideline?

To summarize, the aim of the present study was to examine the impact of a disclaimer, of a causality statement, of additional information on CAMA and of the version actuality (old vs. new) of the KLARpsy guideline on different knowledge items and user experience. Details regarding materials and methods, sample characteristics and experimental procedure will be provided in the following.

Materials & methods

Prior to data collection, the study was preregistered at PsychArchives ( https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.8251 ). All study procedures were approved by the ethics committee of Trier University, Germany.

To test our hypotheses, we employed a between-subjects design with six conditions (see Table 1 ). Four factors (i.e., independent variables) were varied in within these conditions: (a) whether a causality statement was included or not included, (b) whether a disclaimer on the extent of evaluation was included or not included, (c) whether a CAMA-specific PLS was presented or not presented, and (d) whether PLSs were based on the old guideline version or the new guideline version . Since full study materials for PLSs in each experimental conditions are available (see S1 File ), we only provide a brief summary of the essential differences between the above-mentioned conditions here: PLSs in “causality statement included”-conditions contained an additional statement detailing the causal or noncausal interpretation of the effects that independent variables in the summarized meta-analysis had on relevant outcomes. PLSs in the “disclaimer included”-conditions contained a disclaimer on the extent of evaluation, outlining that PLS authors only translated the original meta-analysis, did not conduct the meta-analysis themselves, did not rate the meta-analysis in terms of its correctness or the topicality of its results, and did not verify the validity of the knowledge claims put forward in the meta-analysis. In the “CAMA Specific PLS”-conditions, we framed the underlying meta-analysis for one of the two PLSs as CAMA (i.e., we suggested that the reported evidence stems from the PsychOpen CAMA platform, https://cama.psychopen.eu/ ). Concepts such as “living evidence” or the possibility to continuously update analysis results were also mentioned.

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.t001

Finally, PLSs in the “old guideline version”-conditions were written based on the initial PLS guideline by Chasiotis et al. [ 16 ], while PLSs in the “new guideline version”-condition were written based on an updated version of the guideline [ 18 ].

A general population sample ( N = 2,041) was recruited via the panel provider Bilendi & respondi. Participants had to be of legal age, possess German language skills at native speaker level, to have successfully graduated from school, and to have a self-reported interest in psychological research (value of “4” or higher on a 1 to 8 rating scale). Participants currently studying psychology or holding a degree in psychology were excluded from the study. To recruit approximately the same proportion of participants in terms of age group (50.20% 18–44 years, 49.80% 45 years or older, M = 45.22, SD = 15.23, range = 18–90 years), sex (50.37% women, 49.63% men), and education level (33.56% “Hauptschulabschluss”, 33.37% “Mittlere Reife”, 33.07% “Hochschulreife”), we applied quotas (see Preregistration for more details). It is noteworthy that this resulted in the collection of a balanced demographic sample, rather than a sample precisely representing the age distributions in the German general population.

The study was conducted online using the survey software Unipark. Data collection started on October 21 st and ended on November 7 th 2022. At the beginning of the experiment, participants provided written informed consent. Each participant was then randomly assigned to one experimental condition and read two PLSs, both structured according to the independent variable specification of the assigned condition (e.g., two PLSs that include a causality statement, no disclaimer and no CAMA-specific elements based on the new guideline version, see Table 1 ). The PLSs used in this experiment were written in German language by the study authors (see S1 File ). The results and effects described in these PLSs were based on results and effects of actual meta-analyses on the topic of resilience (based on Färber and Rosendahl [ 26 ]) and on the topic of the efficacy of different psychotherapy interventions for depression treatment (based on Barth et al. [ 27 ]). All participants read one PLS per topic during the study. Topic order (i.e., whether participants read a PLS on psychotherapy or on resilience first) was randomized. Participants read each of the two texts for at least 3 minutes and answered the outcome measures on the same webpage. Knowledge items on the relationship between PLS and meta-analysis and on the extent of evaluation were administered once, after reading through the first PLS. Knowledge items concerning the differentiation between authorship of the PLS and meta-analysis authors, funding, conflict of interest, and causality were presented twice, after reading through each individual PLS. Due to a technical error in the Unipark script, data on items for differentiation of authorships for one PLS (i.e., the PLS on resilience by Färber & Rosendahl) had to be discarded. Thus, deviating from our preregistration, data on differentiation items exists only for one PLS. Three knowledge items on CAMA were presented once after the relevant PLS. After each PLS, participants also rated either the trustworthiness of either the meta-analysis or PLS authors (see below) via the Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI, [ 25 ]). At the end of the experiment, participants completed the awareness check, received a debriefing about the purpose of the study and the experimental variations, and were then redirected to the panel provider.

Full information on item texts and response formats as well as information on further exploratory outcomes and covariates is provided in the preregistration of this study.

Knowledge items.

As knowledge items, we presented sets of statements regarding the following topics: the relationship between the PLS and the corresponding meta-analysis (relationship knowledge, 8 items), the extent of evaluation (evaluation knowledge, 6 items), the differentiation between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors (differentiation knowledge, 6 items), the funding (knowledge on funding, 6 items), the conflicts of interest (knowledge on COI, 7 items), the causality (causality knowledge, 6 items), and the living evidence in PsychOpen CAMA (CAMA knowledge, 8 items). Participants were asked to indicate whether they deemed the corresponding statement to be true or false for each statement separately.”Don’t know” was provided as a third response option. For our analyses, we coded correct responses as “1”, incorrect responses as “-1” and “don’t know” as 0 in a first step. In a second step, we created knowledge item scores as sum scores.

User experience.

Similarly to a previous study [ 5 ] user experience was assessed based on the dimensions of accessibility, understanding and empowerment by means of 8-point Likert scales. Following the approach from a preregistered paper [ 28 ], these three dimensions were merged into a single user experience index. Cronbach’s alpha for this index was .83.

Epistemic trustworthiness (METI): Expertise, benevolence and integrity.

We utilized the METI [ 25 ] to assess participants’ trustworthiness judgements. To address both RQ3a and RQ3b, half of our participants were randomly asked to rate the METI dimensions for the meta-analysis authors, and half were asked to rate the PLS authors. In the METI, participants rate the epistemic trustworthiness of the scientists whose work is presented according to 14 adjective pairs on a semantic differential corresponding to the three dimensions expertise (six items), integrity (four items) and benevolence (four items). Cronbach’s alpha estimates ranging from .90 to .94 indicate that the internal consistency was very good for all METI scales.

Credibility of the presented evidence and personal relevance.

Participants rated the perceived credibility of the presented evidence as well as the perceived personal relevance of the PLS topic on 8-point Likert scales.

Awareness check.

To ensure that participants read the presented texts and questions in a focused and thorough manner, we used an awareness check based on Gamez-Djokic and Molden [ 29 ]. Participants received an introductory text to a short scenario (a famine in a village) and the instruction to leave the following question unanswered to demonstrate awareness. They were then presented with a question and a Likert-scale ranging from 1 to 8. 67.76% of the participants passed this awareness check successfully and did not select any answer option.

Statistical analysis

Sample size calculation..

An a priori power analysis was carried out using GPower [ 30 ]. Since we aimed to compare the different disclaimer, causality statement and CAMA conditions via Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests, we selected “Means: Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (two groups)” as test family and specified the following parameters: A small effect of d = .20, α = .05, β = .80 and an allocation ratio of 1. The analysis indicated that at least N = 325 participants per group would be required to achieve a power of β = .80. Since we planned to test H5a and H5b based on the data of only two experimental conditions (see Table 1 ), and power was expected to be higher for hypotheses using repeated measurements, we decided to recruit at least 325 participants in each of our six experimental conditions. Thus, we aimed for a total sample size of 1,956 participants.

Analysis plan.

Data analysis was conducted both for a dataset of all participants who finished the study and for a subset of participants who successfully passed the awareness check. For each hypothesis, we first computed Wilcoxon rank sum tests comparing knowledge item scores for the new guideline including the experimental variations described above (i.e. a disclaimer, causality statement or CAMA information) with the old guideline and the new guideline without these variations. Next, we used the R-package ordinal [ 31 ] to predict differences in knowledge item scores via manipulation conditions and control variables in logistic regressions. For H4, we report an additional logistic regression analysis with a changed reference group for the causality statement instead of a Wilcoxon test in order to adequately address the repeated measurement of the data. In addition, we investigated differences in participants’ user experience ratings between guideline versions with non-inferiority-testing via equivUMP [ 32 ]. For the non-inferiority-test, user experience ratings from both PLSs will be averaged, and separate analyses for each PLS are available in S4 and S5 Files . Finally, we examined RQ1 and RQ2 via cumulative link mixed-models, and RQ3 via linear regressions.

Because attentive and thorough processing is especially crucial in the context of comparatively minor textual variations such as the inclusion of a disclaimer or a statement on causality, the following results are based on data from participants who successfully passed the awareness check ( N = 1,383). Distributions of cases where the awareness check failed across demographic variables such as age, gender or educational background are available in S4 and S5 Files. Analyses for all participants are available in the R Markdown document in S4 File , and a shortened analysis script emphasizing the main results for participants who passed the awareness check is available in S5 File . Table 1 provides an overview of descriptive statistics for all six experimental conditions. In the following, we will outline the analysis results for all confirmatory hypotheses and research questions step by step. We will focus on presenting the results for logistic or mixed model regressions. In the first step, we will report model tests against the null model, with Nagelkerke’s R 2 [ 33 ] as an overall effect size. In a second step, we will then highlight specific predictors within the models. Finally, results of Wilcoxon rank-sum tests may be added to illustrate specific condition differences in a more in-depth manner. The regression results can be found in Table 2 , and Fig 1 depicts medians for each hypothesis and guideline version via boxplots. An overview of all analyses is available in S4 File .

Boxplots represent the scores for H1 to H5 (top left to bottom middle) and overall user experience for H6 (bottom right). Categories on the x axis represent disclaimer conditions (H1-H3), causality statement conditions (H4), CAMA PLS conditions (H5) or guideline version (H6).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.g001

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.t002

H1: Guideline version, disclaimer and readers’ knowledge on the relationship between PLS and original meta-analysis

An ordinal logistic regression was carried out to examine H1. Readers’ overall score on the relationship knowledge item was used as criterion, while two variables specifying disclaimer and guideline versions (“No Disclaimer, New Guideline” & “Disclaimer, New Guideline”) were used as predictors. Research Summary Type (Färber and Rosendahl compared to Barth et al.), participants’ age, sex, educational background and interest ratings were included as additional control variables. The overall model was significant compared to a null model, χ 2 (11) = 146.68, p < .001, R 2 = 0.124. No significant influences on the relationship knowledge item scores emerged for PLSs following the new guideline versions, irrespective of the presence or absence of disclaimers (No Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 0.94, 95%CI [0.72, 1.23], p = .663; Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 1.12, 95%CI [0.85, 1.47], p = .408). The use of the new version of the guideline as well as the inclusion of a disclaimer did not significantly increase the likelihood of correct answers to the relationship knowledge items compared to the old guideline. In addition, no relationship knowledge score differences in the new guideline condition were found between PLSs including or excluding a disclaimer ( Mdn No Disclaimer = 0 vs. Mdn Disclaimer = 0, W = 90501, p = .186). Therefore, including a disclaimer in the new guideline version neither improved laypeoples’ knowledge on the relationship between PLS and original meta-analysis compared to the old guideline (H1a) nor to the regular new guideline (H1b). Thus, H1a and H1b can be rejected.

H2: Guideline version, disclaimer and readers’ knowledge on PLSs extent of evaluation

In order to examine H2, we again employed ordinal logistic regression. Readers’ overall scores on the evaluation knowledge item were entered as criterion, and the conditions “No Disclaimer, New Guideline” and “Disclaimer, New Guideline” were once again used as predictors. Furthermore, the above-mentioned control variables were again included in the model. The overall model was significant compared to a null model, χ 2 (11) = 99.78, p <. 001, R 2 = .086. As for the influence of the new guideline version and the presence or absence of a disclaimer, the corresponding predictors were not significant (No Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 0.86, 95%CI [0.66, 1.14], p = .293; Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 1.12, 95%CI [0.85, 1.48], p = .402). Participants were not more likely to answer the evaluation knowledge item correctly when they received a PLS based on the new guideline with or without a disclaimer compared to the old guideline. However, a Wilcoxon rank-sum test revealed that the overall evaluation knowledge score was higher in the new guideline condition when a disclaimer was used ( Mdn No Disclaimer = 0 vs. Mdn Disclaimer = 1, W = 89460, p < .05). Including a disclaimer in the new guideline version thus did not improve knowledge on the extent of evaluation compared to the old guideline (H2a), but had positive impacts when compared to the regular version of the new guideline (H2b). H2a is thus rejected, while H2b is confirmed.

H3: Guideline version, disclaimer and readers’ knowledge on the differentiation between PLS authors and MA authors

H3 was examined via ordinal logistic regression, with readers’ overall scores on the differentiation knowledge item as a criterion and guideline and disclaimer conditions (“No Disclaimer, New Guideline” & “Disclaimer, New Guideline”) as predictors. Due to a technical error, differentiation knowledge scores for the PLS based on resilience by Färber and Rosendahl could not be interpreted, hence research summary type had to be excluded as a control variable. To account for the influences of the text position of Barth et al. in the study, text order was instead introduced as a control variable. The overall model was significant compared to a null model, χ 2 (11) = 45.03, p <. 001, with R 2 = .041. The guideline version or presence or absence of disclaimers had no significant impact on differentiation knowledge scores (No Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 0.82, 95%CI [0.62, 1.09], p = .172; Disclaimer, New Guideline: OR = 0.82, 95%CI [0.62, 1.09], p = .170). Furthermore, whether or not a PLS based on the new guideline included a disclaimer did not result in significant differentiation knowledge score differences ( Mdn No Disclaimer = 0 vs. Mdn Disclaimer = 0, W = 94509, p = .978). Laypeople’s knowledge on the differentiation between PLS and meta-analysis authors remained similar, both when the new guideline PLS with a disclaimer was compared to the old guideline PLS (H3a) and the regular new guideline PLS (H3b). H3a and H3b can thus be rejected.

H4: Guideline version, causality statement and readers’ knowledge on the causality of effects

H4 was analyzed via cumulative link mixed models. Readers’ knowledge on the causality knowledge item was entered as a criterion, and due to its repeated measurement, a random intercept for individual readers was added to the model. Furthermore, two separate predictors were entered to account for possible combinations of the guideline version and the use of a causality statement (“No Causality Statement, New Guideline” and “Causality Statement, New Guideline”). Also, we again included the above-mentioned control variables. The overall model fit was superior compared to a null model, χ 2 (13) = 143.4, p <. 001, with R 2 = .063. A presentation of PLS based on the new guideline without a causality statement significantly predicted a lower likelihood of correct answers among readers, OR = 0.83, 95%CI (0.83, 0.83), p < .001. There was no significant effect for PLSs based on the new guideline including a causality statement, OR = 1.11, 95%CI (0.93, 1.31), p = .246. Overall, participants showed poorer causality knowledge scores when solely new guideline PLSs were presented, and the effect was offset when a causality statement was included. In line with this, changing the reference level for the causality statement to “No Causality Statement, New Guideline” resulted in an overall significant model compared to the null model, χ 2 (13) = 143.41, p <. 001, R 2 = .063, in which readers were significantly more likely to correctly answer causality knowledge items when they received a PLS based on the new guideline including a causality statement, OR = 1.32, 95%CI (1.11, 1.58), p < .01. To summarize, presenting laypeople with a PLS based on the new guideline including a causality statement did not result in higher causality knowledge scores compared to the old guideline (H4a), but did improve causality knowledge compared to a PLS based on the regular new guideline (H4b). Thus, the results do not support H4a, but confirm H4b.

H5: Guideline version, CAMA information and readers’ knowledge on CAMA

Next, an ordinal logistic regression model was computed to examine H5. Readers’ CAMA knowledge scores were entered into the model as criterion, and two variables specifying the guideline version and the use of additional CAMA elements (“No CAMA PLS, New Guideline”, “CAMA PLS, New Guideline”) served as predictors. Again, the aforementioned control variables and text order were included. Compared to a null model, the overall model offered a significantly better fit to participants’ data, χ 2 (11) = 54.09, p < .001, R 2 = .079. If readers received a PLS based on the new guideline version without CAMA elements, this did not influence their knowledge on CAMA, OR = 0.77, 95%CI (0.55, 1.07), p = .117. However, when they read through PLSs based on the new guideline including CAMA elements, this significantly increased their likelihood of selecting correct answers, OR = 1.61, 95%CI (1.16, 2.24), p < .01. Overall, participants were able to answer CAMA knowledge items more correctly if they were provided with PLSs based on the new guideline including a disclaimer. Additional Wilcoxon rank sum tests confirmed that readers’ CAMA knowledge score was overall higher when PLSs based on the new guideline were provided ( Mdn Old Guideline = 0 vs. Mdn New Guideline = 1, W = 23613, p < .05). Additionally, their knowledge was higher when PLSs based on the new guideline included CAMA elements ( Mdn No CAMA PLS = 0 vs. Mdn CAMA PLS = 1, W = 17375, p < .001). Therefore, including additional information on CAMA in PLSs based on the new guideline was associated with higher laypeople knowledge on CAMA both in comparison to the old guideline (H5a) and the regular new guideline without CAMA information (H5b). The analyses thus lend support to H5a and H5b.

H6: Guideline version and user experience

Participants’ overall user experience (i.e., a mean score of their ratings of accessibility, understanding and empowerment) with the new guideline version was compared to the old guideline version in order to ensure that the revisions between versions did not result in a lower user experience. To that end, two-sided non-inferiority tests with an upper equivalence limit of Δ = .20 were carried out. For participants’ overall user experience scores, the test reached significance, Δ = .20, t(1339) = - 0.87, p < .05, suggesting that the new guideline is not inferior to the old guideline in terms of user experience. In line with H6, this confirms the a priori assumption that PLSs based on the new guideline would not lead to a significantly lower user experience compared to the old guideline among laypeople.

In addition to the confirmatory analyses reported thus far, multiple additional analyses were conducted to explore further research questions:

RQ1: Guideline version and knowledge on funding

To examine whether the guideline versions used to create PLSs were associated with differences in readers’ knowledge on funding, we once again employed cumulative link mixed models, with a random intercept for individual readers. Readers’ knowledge on funding served as the criterion, while the guideline version (“New Guideline” vs. “Old Guideline”) was specified as the predictor. As previously, research summary type, text order, participant’s age, sex, educational background and interest ratings served as control variables. The overall model provided a superior fit to the data compared to a null model, χ 2 (12) = 331.31, p <. 001, with R 2 = .117. No significant influence of the guideline version on the likelihood to answer funding-questions was found, OR = 0.99, 95%CI (0.77, 1.27), p = .922, suggesting that the guideline version used to present PLSs had no influence on participants’ knowledge on funding.

RQ2: Guideline version and knowledge on conflict of interest

Whether readers’ knowledge on COI was influenced by the guideline version was investigated via cumulative link modeling, once again with a random intercept for individual readers due to repeated measurements and the nested data structure. Knowledge on COI served as a criterion, while the guideline version (“New Guideline” vs. “Old Guideline”) was entered into the model as a predictor. The same control variables as in RQ1 were also included in the model. The overall model fit was superior to a baseline null model, χ 2 (12) = 437.10, p <. 001, with R 2 = .152. The type of guideline version used for the creation of PLSs showed no significant impact on participants’ overall knowledge on COI, OR = 0.84, 95%CI (0.66, 1.08), p = .183. There was thus no major difference in participants’ COI knowledge scores between the new and the old guideline version.

RQ3: Guideline version and readers’ assessment of PLS author and meta-analysis author trustworthiness

As a final exploratory question, we examined the impact of the new and the old PLS writing guideline on participants’ perceptions of PLS authors’ and meta-analysis authors’ trustworthiness via linear regression models. Three separate regression models were set up, with METI expertise, integrity and benevolence as respective criteria. Guideline version (“New Guideline” vs. “Old Guideline”) and METI target (“Summary Authors” vs. “Study Authors”) were entered into each model as predictors. Since the METI was presented after the second PLS, the research summary type of PLSs presented at the second position (i.e., “Färber and Rosendahl” vs. “Barth et al.”) was entered as a control variable, together with participants’ sex, age, educational attainment level and interest. The regression models reached significance for the METI outcomes of expertise, F (8,1345) = 8.92, R 2 = .045, p <. 001, integrity, F (8,1351) = 10.42, R 2 = .053, p < .001, and benevolence F (8,1347) = 11.59, R 2 = .059, p < .001. No significant influences of the METI target on trustworthiness ratings were found, β = .014 - .100, all p s ≥ .108. Similarly, the guideline version employed to create the PLSs did not significantly predict readers’ trustworthiness ratings, β = .032 - .092, all p s ≥ .255. In other words, whether readers evaluated the trustworthiness of PLS authors or meta-analysis authors did not predict trustworthiness differences. Furthermore, the old and new guideline versions were not associated with different trustworthiness scores.

Summary of findings

The present study aimed to contrast PLSs of psychological meta-analyses based on two different writing guideline versions in terms of laypeoples’ knowledge acquisition and user experience. Our study therefore provides insights into the use of PLSs as a means to make research more accessible to laypeople and into the effects of specific textual elements such as a disclaimer, a causality statement and information on CAMA on laypeoples’ knowledge gain and reading experience.

Contrary to our expectations, the inclusion of a disclaimer on the extent of evaluation as well as a statement on the causality of effects often did not affect laypeoples’ knowledge acquisition. This pattern could be observed both when comparing PLSs based on the new guideline including these elements with PLSs based on the old guideline (H1a, H2a, H3a, H4a) as well as the regular new guideline (H1b, H3b). A few explanations can be considered to interpret these findings: First, the basic PLSs created with the new guideline displayed a higher word count and were thus considerably longer compared to PLSs based on the old guideline (Barth et al. new = 982 vs. Barth et al. old = 863, Färber & Rosendahl new = 836 vs. Färber & Rosendahl old = 754), resulting in a length increase of about 17% for Barth et al. and 11% for Färber and Rosendahl. Including a disclaimer and causality statement further increased text length (Färber & Rosendahl new-complete = 1,097, Färber & Rosendahl new-complete = 954), leading to length increases of about 31% for Barth et al. and 27% for Färber and Rosendahl. Drawing on cognitive load theory [ 34 , 35 ], it could be argued that an increased text length associated with the new guideline may have introduced additional extraneous load for readers, which may have counteracted potential knowledge acquisition benefits, i.e. germane load, introduced by the disclaimer or causality statement. This may have introduced difficulties in knowledge retention for readers and resulted in no major knowledge score differences for some of our hypotheses. Additionally, the disclaimer was presented at the end of the PLS. Readers’ interest and attention to information may have decreased during reading, and the final passage interpreting the meta-analytic results may have indicated an end of relevant information to participants. Consequently, they may have simply skimmed the disclaimer without processing its content on a more elaborate level.

In addition, two findings are noteworthy: Compared to the regular new guideline, combining a PLS based on the new guideline with a disclaimer resulted in improved knowledge on the extent of evaluation (H2b). A possible explanation for these results may be that the new guideline immediately made the distinction between meta-analysis authors and PLS authors visible in the introduction. PLSs written according to the new guideline also more frequently used the term “Übersichtsarbeit” (review or review paper, a term we selected to refer to the original meta-analysis) in subheadings. This may have introduced additional information and ambiguity to laypeople when reading solely the regular new guideline, which may have only cleared up once the difference between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors was elaborated upon in the disclaimer statement. As a result, the PLSs based on the regular new guideline may have caused poorer knowledge gain compared to PLSs based on the new guideline with a disclaimer.

Furthermore, including a causality statement in the new guideline enabled participants to answer the knowledge item on the causality of effects more correctly (H4b). Related to these results, it should be pointed out that the new guideline also contained a newly added section on limitations of the summarized meta-analysis. This may automatically make answers about the causal interpretation of effects and the interpretation of the reported findings more difficult for laypeople compared to PLSs based on the old guideline. It seems conceivable that the reduced performance in causality knowledge is only ameliorated once an additional causality statement informs laypeople about the inferences that can be drawn for the meta-analytic results. Thus, laypeoples’ reduced performance on a causality knowledge item when reading the regular new guideline may, again, be associated with an increase in information and ambiguity.

Participants also demonstrated higher levels of knowledge regarding community augmented meta-analyses (CAMA) when a PLS contained additional information on CAMA. This pattern emerged both when a PLS based on the new guideline with CAMA elements was compared to the old guideline (H5a) and the regular new guideline (H5b). These results seem promising and suggest that including specific details about the methodology and process of CAMA in PLSs can enhance laypeople’s understanding, even when it comes to more complex research findings. Generalizing one step further, providing such additional information may be viable in PLSs to reduce accessibility obstacles for non-experts and support them in grasping key concepts.

In terms of overall user experience, no significant differences were observed between the old and new versions of the PLS guideline (H6). Thus, suggestions for improvement provided by experts in the context of the first guideline evaluation, which partly increased PLS length, could be implemented without resulting in a poorer reading experience for laypeople. Both guideline versions can be considered effective in this regard.

Lastly, we did not find any effects of the two guideline versions on participants’ knowledge on funding or COI as well as any differences in trustworthiness ratings between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors. It should be noted that both guideline versions contained almost identical information on these issues, but at different positions. Our results suggest that the exact position of these information in the text likely had no influence. As for similar trustworthiness ratings, previous research has been able to demonstrate that readers frequently disregard source information when reading through single texts (c.f. [ 36 ]). It seems plausible that laypeople may have primarily focused on the text content in the present study, rather than the information outlining the differentiation between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors.

Demographic effects

Generally speaking, two consistent effects of demographic variables on item scores could be observed in the present study. First, a higher reader age was associated with lower scores on knowledge items on the relationship between the PLS and the corresponding meta-analysis (H1), the extent of evaluation (H2), the differentiation between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors (H3) and the causality of effects (H4, see Table 2 ). Reasons for this may include a poorer memory performance associated with higher age (e.g. in item recognition tasks, see [ 37 ]), or a potential greater familiarity of younger laypeople with short research summaries or info texts prevalent in online contexts. And second, a higher educational attainment level (Mittlere Reife or Abitur) generally predicted higher scores regarding knowledge on the relationship between the PLS and the corresponding meta-analysis (H1), on the extent of evaluation (H2), on the causality of effects (H4) and on CAMA (H5, see Table 2 ). Given that both individual student characteristics such as socio-economic status (SES) and science self-efficacy as well as school factors such as school-level SES and parental involvement can affect scientific literacy [ 38 ], and that these variables likely reach higher values in connection to secondary school types such as “Realschule” or “Gymnasium/Gesamtschule” in Germany, a higher level of scientific literacy may be the driving force behind these findings.

Based on these observations, it may be worthwhile to ask the following question: How can one support older laypeople or laypeople with a comparatively lower level of education in processing and understanding psychological PLSs? After all, both these characteristics seem to be predictive of lower scores on multiple knowledge items. One approach could be to not only include textual information in PLSs, but to also rely on elements such as infographics, or to develop PLS formats including both orally narrated and visually presented information. Based on the cognitive theory of multimedia learning [ 39 ], this approach is likely to have benefits for both laypeople’s encoding and retrieval of information, e.g. by reducing the information load that requires processing. The present study was first and foremost focused on textual elements. in order to create an empirically validated guideline without focusing on needs of different user groups. As such, we did not take multimedia learning into account. Future research would benefit from drawing on multimedia principles to make PLSs more effective and to address particular needs of specific demographic groups.

Implications for future research

The current study offers multiple considerations for the field of science communication and future research on PLSs in psychology. As mentioned before, the KLARpsy-guideline compiled existing evidence and experimentally tested variations in PLS formats to provide an empirically validated blueprint for creating PLSs of psychological meta-analyses. The overarching aim is to create PLSs that facilitate laypeople the access to complex scientific publications and to support them in grasping the core concepts of research works. Two implications therefore seem noteworthy: First, laypeople seem to be able to grasp key concepts of a PLS even when further complexity is introduced via multiple authorship levels (i.e., PLS authors and meta-analysis authors), and to understand hints about the fact that a PLS was not evaluated in terms of methodical rigor or scientific correctness by the PLS authors. This implies that even brief science communication formats can offer laypeople this information without negatively affecting knowledge gain or user experience. And second, it seems possible to use PLSs to introduce relatively complex methodologies such as CAMA to laypeople. When introduced via disclaimers and additional explanations in PLSs, this may increase readers’ knowledge gain compared to PLSs that omit such concepts or only mention them briefly. We would thus like to encourage future research on PLS to further investigate these textual elements.

Another point worth investigating may be the role that information on research limitations in PLSs plays for laypeople’s knowledge gain. Introducing such information via a passage in the regular new guideline may have caused more ambivalence and uncertainty for laypeople. The result may have been a poorer performance regarding the causal interpretation of effects. Future PLS research could consider this question, e.g. by comparing text conditions with different types of causality statements against one another. This has the potential to further outline the effects of limitation statements on laypeople and how these limitation statements can be buffered.

Further PLS development would also benefit from a more in-depth analysis of user experience and user behavior. For example, employing eye-tracking technology [ 40 ] could help to identify laypeople’s gaze patterns, thereby improving understanding about which PLS passages laypeople focus the most attention on and which passages they may merely skim. Similarly, recognition and recall memory tests could be used to further explore differences between future PLS versions. This could even be combined with time-delayed follow-up tests (e.g. after 2, 4 or 6 weeks) to explore how well laypeople retain information included in PLS in their long-term memory. And, finally, examining how practitioners such as clinical psychologists, counselors, child development specialists or recruiters as well as policymakers draw on PLSs and which PLS aspects may prove beneficial when transferring information into practical work remains a worthwhile question. Although initial research on this issue exists for systematic reviews [ 41 , 42 ] and points towards the benefits of said reviews for practitioners, further studies and more thorough examinations have the potential to uncover how PLSs can be turned into a more effective support-tool for decision-making. Investigating practitioners’ or policymakers’ reactions to PLSs, e.g. in the context of a decision-making task, may help to illuminate factors that facilitate or impede PLS use among these groups. All of these approaches have the potential to further uncover how laypeople interact with PLS and which text features may be of particular importance for knowledge gain and informed decision-making.

Strengths and limitations

There are three major strengths of our study we would like to point out:

First, our study was preregistered, which enhances the transparency of our research and increases the validity of our findings. Second, we collected data from a large sample of the German-speaking general population, which increases the generalizability of our findings beyond a purely academic context. To achieve this, we aimed for a balanced sample, with an approximately equal number of participants in each demographic category. Third, we employed standardized PLSs derived from published and peer-reviewed psychological research. This enhances the ecological validity of our study and ensures that our findings may be applied to practical contexts where PLSs of psychological research are provided to laypeople.

However, one main limitation is that we were not able to control for variables apart from those targeted via our experimental variations and covariates. Due to the evaluation process during guideline development and for reasons of practicality during the PLS writing process, it was not possible to maintain constant control over all other influencing factors (e.g., text length). This limitation may have introduced additional variability into the study results, making it challenging to isolate the effects of our specific manipulations.

Moreover, a technical error which occurred during the study has to be taken into account with respect to the interpretation of knowledge on the differentiation between PLS authors and meta-analysis authors (H3). The analysis of the respective knowledge item was only possible for the PLS based on Barth et al., and specific text effects for Färber and Rosendahl cannot be ruled out. Finally, we employed newly created knowledge items specifically designed for the assessment of knowledge in the context of PLSs in our study. As no validated short knowledge items for PLSs are currently available, this represents a crucial limitation. Future research could aim to develop and validate a scale specifically tailored for assessing knowledge gain after reading PLSs or short research summary formats.

Conclusions

In line with earlier research, our study corroborates the potential of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses to bridge the gap between academic research and lay audiences. By systematically testing annotations and suggestions from an expert user survey and individual user feedback in a large target group sample, we complied to a fundamental requirement for evidence-based, accessible and high-quality PLSs. The inclusion of additional information on complex methodologies, such as CAMA, can enhance laypeoples’ knowledge acquisition regarding more complex and innovative scientific methods. However, the effectiveness of other elements, such as information on authorship of PLS and meta-analysis (a disclaimer) and a causality statement, may require further investigation. These findings contribute to the ongoing efforts to improve science communication and to make psychological research more accessible and comprehensible to the general public.

Supporting information

S1 file. original german plss and english translations..

https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14217 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.s001

S2 File. Dataset.

https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14218 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.s002

S3 File. Codebook.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.s003

S4 File. Complete R Markdown.

https://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.14219 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.s004

S5 File. Shortened R Markdown.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300675.s005

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Lea Stulz for her support in proofreading and preparing the final version of the manuscript.

• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 10. Bråten I, Stadtler M, Salmerón L. The Role of Sourcing in Discourse Comprehension. In: Schober MF, Rapp DN, Britt MA, editors. The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Processes [Internet]. 2nd ed. Routledge; 2017 [cited 2023 May 8]. p. 141–66. Available from: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781317417989/chapters/10.4324/9781315687384-10
• 13. Manninen BA. False Cause: Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. In: Arp R, Barbone S, Bruce M, editors. Bad Arguments [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2018 [cited 2023 May 5]. p. 335–7. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119165811.ch78
• 20. Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. Trust in Science and the Science of Trust. In: Blöbaum B, editor. Trust and Communication in a Digitized World [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2016 [cited 2021 Jun 24]. p. 143–59. (Progress in IS). Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-28059-2_8
• 22. Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JP, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A, et al. Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2019 [cited 2023 May 8]. p. 177–204. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781119536604.ch7
• 35. Sweller J, Ayres P, Kalyuga S. Cognitive Load Theory [Internet]. 1st ed. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2011 [cited 2021 May 31]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
• 39. Sorden SD. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. In: Irby B, Brown GH, Lara-Aiecio R, Jackson SA, editors. The Handbook of Educational Theories. Information Age Publishing, 2012, pp. 155–167.

Advertisement

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

By The New York Times Updated May 1, 4:40 P.M. ET

• Share full article

Twenty-one states ban abortion or restrict the procedure earlier in pregnancy than the standard set by Roe v. Wade, which governed reproductive rights for nearly half a century until the Supreme Court overturned the decision in 2022.

In some states, the fight over abortion access is still taking place in courtrooms, where advocates have sued to block bans and restrictions. Other states have moved to expand access to abortion by adding legal protections.

Latest updates

• The Arizona state legislature voted to repeal an 1864 ban on nearly all abortions. Officials warned that the near-total ban may be briefly enforceable this summer until the repeal takes effect in the fall. A 15-week ban remains in effect.
• A ban on abortion after about six weeks of pregnancy took effect in Florida , following a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that the privacy protections of the state’s Constitution do not extend to abortion.

The New York Times is tracking abortion laws in each state after the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , which ended the constitutional right to an abortion.

Where abortion is legal

In a few states that have enacted bans or restrictions, abortion remains legal for now as courts determine whether these laws can take effect. Abortion is legal in the rest of the country, and many states have added new protections since Dobbs.

Ban in effect

Note: TK note here.

Legal for now

State details.

More details on the current status of abortion in each state are below.

An earlier version of this article misstated the legal status of abortion in Utah. As of 4 p.m. on June 24, the state attorney general had issued a statement saying the state’s abortion ban had been triggered, but it had not yet been authorized by the legislature’s general counsel. By 8:30 p.m., the counsel authorized the ban and it went into effect.

A table in an earlier version of this article misstated which abortion ban is being challenged in Texas state court. Abortion rights supporters are challenging a pre-Roe ban, not the state’s trigger ban.

An earlier version of this article referred incorrectly to the legal status of abortion in Indiana. While Indiana abortion providers stopped offering abortion services in anticipation of an abortion ban taking effect on Aug. 1, the law did not take effect.