I have always advocated for the author — how can we understand the author, their cultural context, their challenges as they navigate publication and how can we support them better? It is ironic then that today, instead of subtracting from the umpteen tasks that authors are expected to do, I want to focus on one additional task that I believe that authors should take on. I want to add to the list and not subtract, for a change. I would like to advocate for the adoption of graphical abstracts.
While some journals mandate graphical abstracts, others recommend them, and many don’t touch upon them at all. I understand that the academic landscape is not flashy. It’s muted, in fact, with papers struggling to be discovered. And this in a world filled with TikTok videos, Instagram reels, and 280-character tweets. No wonder then that the lay public thinks of a research paper as….well…. dry.
The reality is that papers are primarily written for researchers and experts in the field; however, if we want to broaden the audience base and zero in on readership as a key metric, then authors need to explore more visual formats for readers to consume. The graphical abstract is one such format; it is more than a dash of lime or a garnish that we sprinkle on at the end. It is a critical aspect — one that so far has not been given the credit it deserves.
So, why is the industry clinging to tradition — seeing this innovation as optional rather than essential? Dense blocks of ideas and text are not the only way to communicate — some may enjoy reading in-depth while other readers may scroll and skim through text. To accommodate for varying reading styles, we also need something visual, something compelling to sustain their interest. Being present in different channels and presenting research in different formats has no downsides; it will only help with discoverability.
In fact, social media algorithms are designed to prioritize images and videos. And this is supported by recent research. Maleki and Holmberg report:
Results from recent studies about including some media content in tweets that link to scientific publications suggests that adding some visuals to the tweets can significantly enhance the users’ engagement with the tweets. Hoffberg et al. (2020) created a randomized control trial group to compare dissemination of tweets with visual abstracts to textual tweets linking to 50 PubMed articles, finding that visual abstracts had significantly higher number of impressions, retweets and link clicks. Oska et al. (2020) also conducted a prospective case–control analysis of 40 articles in American Journal of Nephrology. Researchers tweeted the articles in three different formats: text only, with a key figure, and with a visual abstract. The results showed that visual abstracts attracted twice as many views as the tweets with key figures and text only, and that they gained five times more user engagement than the text only tweets and 3.5 times more than the tweets containing key figure.
No wonder then, that many authors are already using visual formats to promote their work on social media. So, if publishers don’t want to lose the opportunity to define how research is presented and shared, then they must lead the way.
This brings me to the chicken and egg problem — should journals mandate the use of graphical abstracts? Or should they wait for author adoption first? Will authors adopt it if it is not mandated?
And more importantly, is mandating graphical abstracts enough? Won’t there be resistance from the author community? Will authors see enough value in graphical abstracts to invest time and effort in making effective ones? Or will they submit them just for the sake of it? For scholarly uptake, it is important for authors to see merit in doing this. Will it help if publishers and academic societies share case studies with the author community actually depicting real-life examples of authors who have benefited from their graphic work?
Additionally, it is also important to understand the author perspective. Not everyone is great at design and not everyone is equally tech-competent. Does this mean that sub-par quality graphical abstracts are acceptable? Or is it possible for publishers, societies, and institutions to create guidelines, tutorials, templates, and resources that will help authors create these visuals?
Will an AI tool help publishers and authors generate such graphical abstracts within minutes? Or will it lead to all the graphical abstracts looking templatized and boring? For instance, in my experience, tools like Mind-the-Graph are effective, accessible, and free. Yet, the output can vary considerably, depending on the user’s design sensibilities. At CACTUS (Full disclosure: I am affiliated with CACTUS and both Mind the Graph and Editage are CACTUS brands) we are seeing gradually increasing traction for Editage’s graphical abstract services, but conversations with authors indicate that the two significant uses cases are 1) journals mandating the graphical abstract and 2) authors wanting to use it to showcase their work to funders. If not for journal mandates or funders, most authors would perhaps overlook the value of graphical abstracts as a tool for research promotion.
So, the question remains, do authors see value in such a service? And if yes, are they willing to bear the cost?
Without institutional support, it will be difficult for authors to prioritize the creation of graphical abstracts and uptake will be slow. We also need to consider the challenges that researchers from under-resourced countries face as this gains traction. Until we figure this out and until we are able to support authors in the best way possible, can we at least meet half way?
Maybe instead of just recommending the use of graphical abstracts or requiring them, can we think of ways to incentivize their production? Maybe those who submit graphical abstracts get more visibility or priority in search results perhaps? The aim has to be to communicate the value of graphical abstracts and then allow the author to decide if their research can be best communicated using this visual tool or not.
At the end of the day, the question is not so much as what comes first — but what can we do collectively to ensure the research is discovered, read, and cited.
I hope our Instagram feeds get a lot more interesting in the future — with videos and graphical abstracts of cutting-edge research. I hope authors can use these visual abstracts to demonstrate the impact of their work to funders and policymakers. I hope that this shift makes impactful research accessible and discoverable, not just from top-tier journals but also from smaller niche publications.
Discussion
10 Thoughts on "The Chicken or Egg Problem — Should Publishers Mandate Graphical Abstracts or Let Authors Lead the Way?"
Interesting. I work in book publishing rather than journals. My question is about accessibility. Won’t all images and graphs require alt text? Or would graphical abstracts fall under “image is sufficiently described by text”?
A counterpoint. Most graphical abstracts leave me flat. The graphics are often too dense or too abstract to quickly grasp. But perhaps part of the issue is that good visualizations are hard and authors are on their own to figure it out at the last stage of manuscript preparation. Publishers ask for them but don’t necessarily know how to use them either. I went to the trouble of preparing one that I thought was pretty good for an article in a Wiley journal. The graphical abstract only appeared in the journal issue’s table of contents – it was excluded from both the online and pdf versions of the article. What is a journal “issue” these days anyway? No reader ever finds an article by scrolling through an issue table of contents any more. They find articles directly through links, topical searches, or prompts for related papers. Maybe it’s just Wiley’s presentation, but I thought the graphical abstract was a waste of time.
This example – the article – No graphical abstract to be found: https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.5131
The graphical abstract buried by the publisher: https://setac.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/cms/asset/1c192498-e89c-4122-bb4b-855550543e42/etc5131-gra-0001-m.jpg
The journal “Animal Frontiers” has a section called “Infographic” which I find more useful for general audience consumption than a “Graphical abstract”. Examples can be checked at https://academic.oup.com/af/search-results?f_TocHeadingTitleList=Infographic&login=false
However, it has puzzled me, that this section is not described in the list of “types” of manuscripts that can be considered. Possibly they are a sort of “invited infographic” as are based on a paper contained in the same issue or a recent issue. They do have a title aimed at the general public, their own DOI, and hence I guess they could be counted as an independent product/”publication” for the author(s).
The journal is indexed and has an impact factor, thus it can be considered that it could be an acceptable practice that might resemble the “front matter” material of other journals.
May I suggest an SK chef interviews the parent societies to explore how this approach is working?
It caught my attention that no infographic was published in 2024.
I was genuinely TRYING to follow you with an open mind until I came to the paragraph about Mind the Graph. This came across feeling uncomfortably like a sales pitch for graphical abstract services — “Journals should require graphical abstracts so that service providers can earn more money from authors.” Graphical abstracts would become just one more barrier for authors to overcome — and, even worse, yet one more barrier that disproportionately affects researchers who are already less privileged and under-resourced. “Struggling to get your paper published as a non-native-English writer, or to afford expensive language editing services? How about we pile on top of you even further by making you feel lacking in graphic design skills, so you feel like you have to figure out how to buy that service too?” Definitely just back up and let authors lead the way in this — Share findings with them about how their work might be more noticed, but then let them decide how to proceed. If individual authors feel that their research topic is well-suited to graphical summary, and they wish to devote their time and skills to creating a graphical abstract: fabulous, they can do so. Those who lack the skill to create a graphical abstract (or resources to have one created), and those whose topics simply don’t boil down well into an infographic, can decline.
My spouse publishes multiple scientific manuscripts a year and uses Chat GPT for starter graphics on figures and general graphics for posters or presentation, so I know that authors are smart enough to figure out a way to add graphics if they don’t have the requisite skills themselves. I’m not sure they have the forethought to make the graphics accessible to all readers, however. While I enjoy a graphic to demonstrate complex ideas, I want it to supplement the text, not replace the text. I have several colleagues who need graphic to text descriptions in order to read, and requiring a graphic would unnecessarily create another accessibility barrier. Given the reduction of editorial services available at journals, I don’t think we can count on journals to make sure graphics will be accessible to all readers. I’m afraid some readers will be left behind.
I tend to agree. I have read that graphics and tables often reduce the cognitive load for sighted users but increase the cognitive load for those using text to speech.
The accessibility issue is real, but journal articles already have complex visuals that don’t address this problem. I think addressing that is a separate issue that shouldn’t preclude adding a graphical abstract in addition to the text-based abstract, which essentially could/would serve as the alt text needed by some readers.
I also think there’s a misunderstanding of the article. I don’t think the intent is to replace traditional abstracts with graphical abstracts. A decent graphical abstract should do exactly what Paula is asking for – “ While I enjoy a graphic to demonstrate complex ideas, I want it to supplement the text, not replace the text.”
I don’t get the point of this at all. Same with “highlights”. Last “highlights” I did I used ChatGPT to generate them. Authors will do the same to generate graphical abstracts.
If the authors have presented the study at a conference (at least in life sciences), there’s a good chance they already have something that can serve as a graphical abstract. I was at Cell Press when they started this in 2010, and while there was some resistance to adoption, most authors seem fine with it now.
Recently, I wanted to post on X for a colleague’s paper published in a journal that doesn’t use graphical abstracts. Because of how the site is coded, figure 1 becomes the image in the post automatically. That didn’t look so great!
I’m definitely in favor of graphical abstracts, and I think most authors can manage on their own – with or without GenAI.