what is a summary in a research paper

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

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

Resources Home 🏠
Try SciSpace Copilot
Search research papers
Add Copilot Extension
Try AI Detector
Try Paraphraser
Try Citation Generator
April Papers
June Papers
July Papers

How To Write A Research Summary

It’s a common perception that writing a research summary is a quick and easy task. After all, how hard can jotting down 300 words be? But when you consider the weight those 300 words carry, writing a research summary as a part of your dissertation, essay or compelling draft for your paper instantly becomes daunting task.

A research summary requires you to synthesize a complex research paper into an informative, self-explanatory snapshot. It needs to portray what your article contains. Thus, writing it often comes at the end of the task list.

Regardless of when you’re planning to write, it is no less of a challenge, particularly if you’re doing it for the first time. This blog will take you through everything you need to know about research summary so that you have an easier time with it.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is the part of your research paper that describes its findings to the audience in a brief yet concise manner. A well-curated research summary represents you and your knowledge about the information written in the research paper.

While writing a quality research summary, you need to discover and identify the significant points in the research and condense it in a more straightforward form. A research summary is like a doorway that provides access to the structure of a research paper's sections.

Since the purpose of a summary is to give an overview of the topic, methodology, and conclusions employed in a paper, it requires an objective approach. No analysis or criticism.

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

They’re both brief, concise, and give an overview of an aspect of the research paper. So, it’s easy to understand why many new researchers get the two confused. However, a research summary and abstract are two very different things with individual purpose. To start with, a research summary is written at the end while the abstract comes at the beginning of a research paper.

A research summary captures the essence of the paper at the end of your document. It focuses on your topic, methods, and findings. More like a TL;DR, if you will. An abstract, on the other hand, is a description of what your research paper is about. It tells your reader what your topic or hypothesis is, and sets a context around why you have embarked on your research.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before you start writing, you need to get insights into your research’s content, style, and organization. There are three fundamental areas of a research summary that you should focus on.

While deciding the contents of your research summary, you must include a section on its importance as a whole, the techniques, and the tools that were used to formulate the conclusion. Additionally, there needs to be a short but thorough explanation of how the findings of the research paper have a significance.
To keep the summary well-organized, try to cover the various sections of the research paper in separate paragraphs. Besides, how the idea of particular factual research came up first must be explained in a separate paragraph.
As a general practice worldwide, research summaries are restricted to 300-400 words. However, if you have chosen a lengthy research paper, try not to exceed the word limit of 10% of the entire research paper.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

The research summary is nothing but a concise form of the entire research paper. Therefore, the structure of a summary stays the same as the paper. So, include all the section titles and write a little about them. The structural elements that a research summary must consist of are:

It represents the topic of the research. Try to phrase it so that it includes the key findings or conclusion of the task.

The abstract gives a context of the research paper. Unlike the abstract at the beginning of a paper, the abstract here, should be very short since you’ll be working with a limited word count.

Introduction

This is the most crucial section of a research summary as it helps readers get familiarized with the topic. You should include the definition of your topic, the current state of the investigation, and practical relevance in this part. Additionally, you should present the problem statement, investigative measures, and any hypothesis in this section.

Methodology

This section provides details about the methodology and the methods adopted to conduct the study. You should write a brief description of the surveys, sampling, type of experiments, statistical analysis, and the rationality behind choosing those particular methods.

Create a list of evidence obtained from the various experiments with a primary analysis, conclusions, and interpretations made upon that. In the paper research paper, you will find the results section as the most detailed and lengthy part. Therefore, you must pick up the key elements and wisely decide which elements are worth including and which are worth skipping.

This is where you present the interpretation of results in the context of their application. Discussion usually covers results, inferences, and theoretical models explaining the obtained values, key strengths, and limitations. All of these are vital elements that you must include in the summary.

Most research papers merge conclusion with discussions. However, depending upon the instructions, you may have to prepare this as a separate section in your research summary. Usually, conclusion revisits the hypothesis and provides the details about the validation or denial about the arguments made in the research paper, based upon how convincing the results were obtained.

The structure of a research summary closely resembles the anatomy of a scholarly article . Additionally, you should keep your research and references limited to authentic and scholarly sources only.

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

The core concept behind undertaking a research summary is to present a simple and clear understanding of your research paper to the reader. The biggest hurdle while doing that is the number of words you have at your disposal. So, follow the steps below to write a research summary that sticks.

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

You should go through the research paper thoroughly multiple times to ensure that you have a complete understanding of its contents. A 3-stage reading process helps.

a. Scan: In the first read, go through it to get an understanding of its basic concept and methodologies.

b. Read: For the second step, read the article attentively by going through each section, highlighting the key elements, and subsequently listing the topics that you will include in your research summary.

c. Skim: Flip through the article a few more times to study the interpretation of various experimental results, statistical analysis, and application in different contexts.

Sincerely go through different headings and subheadings as it will allow you to understand the underlying concept of each section. You can try reading the introduction and conclusion simultaneously to understand the motive of the task and how obtained results stay fit to the expected outcome.

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

While exploring different sections of an article, you can try finding answers to simple what, why, and how. Below are a few pointers to give you an idea:

What is the research question and how is it addressed?
Is there a hypothesis in the introductory part?
What type of methods are being adopted?
What is the sample size for data collection and how is it being analyzed?
What are the most vital findings?
Do the results support the hypothesis?

Discussion/Conclusion

What is the final solution to the problem statement?
What is the explanation for the obtained results?
What is the drawn inference?
What are the various limitations of the study?

3. Prepare the first draft

Now that you’ve listed the key points that the paper tries to demonstrate, you can start writing the summary following the standard structure of a research summary. Just make sure you’re not writing statements from the parent research paper verbatim.

Instead, try writing down each section in your own words. This will not only help in avoiding plagiarism but will also show your complete understanding of the subject. Alternatively, you can use a summarizing tool (AI-based summary generators) to shorten the content or summarize the content without disrupting the actual meaning of the article.

SciSpace Copilot is one such helpful feature! You can easily upload your research paper and ask Copilot to summarize it. You will get an AI-generated, condensed research summary. SciSpace Copilot also enables you to highlight text, clip math and tables, and ask any question relevant to the research paper; it will give you instant answers with deeper context of the article..

4. Include visuals

One of the best ways to summarize and consolidate a research paper is to provide visuals like graphs, charts, pie diagrams, etc.. Visuals make getting across the facts, the past trends, and the probabilistic figures around a concept much more engaging.

5. Double check for plagiarism

It can be very tempting to copy-paste a few statements or the entire paragraphs depending upon the clarity of those sections. But it’s best to stay away from the practice. Even paraphrasing should be done with utmost care and attention.

Also: QuillBot vs SciSpace: Choose the best AI-paraphrasing tool

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

You need to have strict control while writing different sections of a research summary. In many cases, it has been observed that the research summary and the parent research paper become the same length. If that happens, it can lead to discrediting of your efforts and research summary itself. Whatever the standard word limit has been imposed, you must observe that carefully.

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

The process of writing the research summary can be exhausting and tiring. However, you shouldn’t allow this to become a reason to skip checking your academic writing several times for mistakes like misspellings, grammar, wordiness, and formatting issues. Proofread and edit until you think your research summary can stand out from the others, provided it is drafted perfectly on both technicality and comprehension parameters. You can also seek assistance from editing and proofreading services , and other free tools that help you keep these annoying grammatical errors at bay.

8. Watch while you write

Keep a keen observation of your writing style. You should use the words very precisely, and in any situation, it should not represent your personal opinions on the topic. You should write the entire research summary in utmost impersonal, precise, factually correct, and evidence-based writing.

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

Once you are done with the final copy of your research summary, you must ask a friend or colleague to read it. You must test whether your friend or colleague could grasp everything without referring to the parent paper. This will help you in ensuring the clarity of the article.

Once you become familiar with the research paper summary concept and understand how to apply the tips discussed above in your current task, summarizing a research summary won’t be that challenging. While traversing the different stages of your academic career, you will face different scenarios where you may have to create several research summaries.

In such cases, you just need to look for answers to simple questions like “Why this study is necessary,” “what were the methods,” “who were the participants,” “what conclusions were drawn from the research,” and “how it is relevant to the wider world.” Once you find out the answers to these questions, you can easily create a good research summary following the standard structure and a precise writing style.

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Research Summary: What Is It & How To Write One

Introduction

A research summary is a requirement during academic research and sometimes you might need to prepare a research summary during a research project for an organization.

Most people find a research summary a daunting task as you are required to condense complex research material into an informative, easy-to-understand article most times with a minimum of 300-500 words.

In this post, we will guide you through all the steps required to make writing your research summary an easier task.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is a piece of writing that summarizes the research of a specific topic into bite-size easy-to-read and comprehend articles. The primary goal is to give the reader a detailed outline of the key findings of a research.

It is an unavoidable requirement in colleges and universities. To write a good research summary, you must understand the goal of your research, as this would help make the process easier.

A research summary preserves the structure and sections of the article it is derived from.

Research Summary or Abstract: What’s The Difference?

The Research Summary and Abstract are similar, especially as they are both brief, straight to the point, and provide an overview of the entire research paper. However, there are very clear differences.

To begin with, a Research summary is written at the end of a research activity, while the Abstract is written at the beginning of a research paper.

A Research Summary captures the main points of a study, with an emphasis on the topic, method , and discoveries, an Abstract is a description of what your research paper would talk about and the reason for your research or the hypothesis you are trying to validate.

Let us take a deeper look at the difference between both terms.

What is an Abstract?

An abstract is a short version of a research paper. It is written to convey the findings of the research to the reader. It provides the reader with information that would help them understand the research, by giving them a clear idea about the subject matter of a research paper. It is usually submitted before the presentation of a research paper.

What is a Summary?

A summary is a short form of an essay, a research paper, or a chapter in a book. A research summary is a narration of a research study, condensing the focal points of research to a shorter form, usually aligned with the same structure of the research study, from which the summary is derived.

What Is The Difference Between an Abstract and a Summary?

An abstract communicates the main points of a research paper, it includes the questions, major findings, the importance of the findings, etc.

An abstract reflects the perceptions of the author about a topic, while a research summary reflects the ideology of the research study that is being summarized.

Getting Started with a Research Summary

Before commencing a research summary, there is a need to understand the style and organization of the content you plan to summarize. There are three fundamental areas of the research that should be the focal point:

When deciding on the content include a section that speaks to the importance of the research, and the techniques and tools used to arrive at your conclusion.
Keep the summary well organized, and use paragraphs to discuss the various sections of the research.
Restrict your research to 300-400 words which is the standard practice for research summaries globally. However, if the research paper you want to summarize is a lengthy one, do not exceed 10% of the entire research material.

Once you have satisfied the requirements of the fundamentals for starting your research summary, you can now begin to write using the following format:

Why was this research done? – A clear description of the reason the research was embarked on and the hypothesis being tested.
Who was surveyed? – Your research study should have details of the source of your information. If it was via a survey, you should document who the participants of the survey were and the reason that they were selected.
What was the methodology? – Discuss the methodology, in terms of what kind of survey method did you adopt. Was it a face-to-face interview, a phone interview, or a focus group setting?
What were the key findings? – This is perhaps the most vital part of the process. What discoveries did you make after the testing? This part should be based on raw facts free from any personal bias.
Conclusion – What conclusions did you draw from the findings?
Takeaways and action points – This is where your views and perception can be reflected. Here, you can now share your recommendations or action points.
Identify the focal point of the article – In other to get a grasp of the content covered in the research paper, you can skim the article first, in a bid to understand the most essential part of the research paper.
Analyze and understand the topic and article – Writing a summary of a research paper involves being familiar with the topic – the current state of knowledge, key definitions, concepts, and models. This is often gleaned while reading the literature review. Please note that only a deep understanding ensures efficient and accurate summarization of the content.
Make notes as you read – Highlight and summarize each paragraph as you read. Your notes are what you would further condense to create a draft that would form your research summary.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

Title – This highlights the area of analysis, and can be formulated to briefly highlight key findings.
Abstract – this is a very brief and comprehensive description of the study, required in every academic article, with a length of 100-500 words at most.
Introduction – this is a vital part of any research summary, it provides the context and the literature review that gently introduces readers to the subject matter. The introduction usually covers definitions, questions, and hypotheses of the research study.
Methodology –This section emphasizes the process and or data analysis methods used, in terms of experiments, surveys, sampling, or statistical analysis.
Results section – this section lists in detail the results derived from the research with evidence obtained from all the experiments conducted.
Discussion – these parts discuss the results within the context of current knowledge among subject matter experts. Interpretation of results and theoretical models explaining the observed results, the strengths of the study, and the limitations experienced are going to be a part of the discussion.
Conclusion – In a conclusion, hypotheses are discussed and revalidated or denied, based on how convincing the evidence is.
References – this section is for giving credit to those who work you studied to create your summary. You do this by providing appropriate citations as you write.

Research Summary Example 1

Below are some defining elements of a sample research summary.

Title – “The probability of an unexpected volcanic eruption in Greenwich”

Introduction – this section would list the catastrophic consequences that occurred in the country and the importance of analyzing this event.

Hypothesis – An eruption of the Greenwich supervolcano would be preceded by intense preliminary activity manifesting in advance, before the eruption.

Results – these could contain a report of statistical data from various volcanic eruptions happening globally while looking critically at the activity that occurred before these events.

Discussion and conclusion – Given that Greenwich is now consistently monitored by scientists and that signs of an eruption are usually detected before the volcanic eruption, this confirms the hypothesis. Hence creating an emergency plan outlining other intervention measures and ultimately evacuation is essential.

Research Summary Example 2

Below is another sample sketch.

Title – “The frequency of extreme weather events in the UK in 2000-2008 as compared to the ‘60s”

Introduction – Weather events bring intense material damage and cause pain to the victims affected.

Hypothesis – Extreme weather events are more frequent in recent times compared to the ‘50s

Results – The frequency of several categories of extreme events now and then are listed here, such as droughts, fires, massive rainfall/snowfalls, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc.

Discussion and conclusion – Several types of extreme events have become more commonplace in recent times, confirming the hypothesis. This rise in extreme weather events can be traced to rising CO2 levels and increasing temperatures and global warming explain the rising frequency of these disasters. Addressing the rising CO2 levels and paying attention to climate change is the only to combat this phenomenon.

A research summary is the short form of a research paper, analyzing the important aspect of the study. Everyone who reads a research summary has a full grasp of the main idea being discussed in the original research paper. Conducting any research means you will write a summary, which is an important part of your project and would be the most read part of your project.

Having a guideline before you start helps, this would form your checklist which would guide your actions as you write your research summary. It is important to note that a Research Summary is different from an Abstract paper written at the beginning of a research paper, describing the idea behind a research paper.

Connect to Formplus, Get Started Now - It's Free!

abstract in research papers
abstract writing
action research
research summary
research summary vs abstract
research surveys
Angela Kayode-Sanni

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

A comprehensive guide on the definition of research questions, types, importance, good and bad research question examples

How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

In this article, we will share some tips for writing an effective abstract, plus samples you can learn from.

The McNamara Fallacy: How Researchers Can Detect and to Avoid it.

Introduction The McNamara Fallacy is a common problem in research. It happens when researchers take a single piece of data as evidence...

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

Introduction Action research is an evidence-based approach that has been used for years in the field of education and social sciences....

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Collect data the right way with a versatile data collection tool. try formplus and transform your work productivity today..

How it works

Writing a Summary – Explanation & Examples

Published by Alvin Nicolas at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023

In a world bombarded with vast amounts of information, condensing and presenting data in a digestible format becomes invaluable. Enter summaries.

A summary is a brief and concise account of the main points of a larger body of work. It distils complex ideas, narratives, or data into a version that is quicker to read and easier to understand yet still retains the essence of the original content.

Importance of Summaries

The importance of summarising extends far beyond just making reading more manageable. In academic settings, summaries aid students in understanding and retaining complex materials, from textbook chapters to research articles. They also serve as tools to showcase one’s grasp of the subject in essays and reports.

In professional arenas, summaries are pivotal in business reports, executive briefings, and even emails where key points need to be conveyed quickly to decision-makers. Meanwhile, summarising skills come into play in our personal lives when we relay news stories to friends, recap a movie plot, or even scroll through condensed news or app notifications on our smartphones.

Why Do We Write Summaries?

In our modern information age, the sheer volume of content available can be overwhelming. From detailed research papers to comprehensive news articles, the quest for knowledge is often met with lengthy and complex resources. This is where the power of a well-crafted summary comes into play. But what drives us to create or seek out summaries? Let’s discuss.

Makes Important Things Easy to Remember

At the heart of summarisation is the goal to understand. A well-written summary aids in digesting complex material. By distilling larger works into their core points, we reinforce the primary messages, making them easier to remember. This is especially crucial for students who need to retain knowledge for exams or professionals prepping for a meeting based on a lengthy report.

Simplification of Complex Topics

Not everyone is an expert in every field. Often, topics come laden with jargon, intricate details, and nuanced arguments. Summaries act as a bridge, translating this complexity into accessible and straightforward content. This is especially beneficial for individuals new to a topic or those who need just the highlights without the intricacies.

Aid in Researching and Understanding Diverse Sources

Researchers, writers, and academics often wade through many sources when working on a project. This involves finding sources of different types, such as primary or secondary sources , and then understanding their content. Sifting through each source in its entirety can be time-consuming. Summaries offer a streamlined way to understand each source’s main arguments or findings, making synthesising information from diverse materials more efficient.

Condensing Information for Presentation or Sharing

In professional settings, there is often a need to present findings, updates, or recommendations to stakeholders. An executive might not have the time to go through a 50-page report, but they would certainly appreciate a concise summary highlighting the key points. Similarly, in our personal lives, we often summarise movie plots, book stories, or news events when sharing with friends or family.

Characteristics of a Good Summary

Crafting an effective summary is an art. It’s more than just shortening a piece of content; it is about capturing the essence of the original work in a manner that is both accessible and true to its intent. Let’s explore the primary characteristics that distinguish a good summary from a mediocre one:

Conciseness

At the core of a summary is the concept of brevity. But being concise doesn’t mean leaving out vital information. A good summary will:

Eliminate superfluous details or repetitive points.
Focus on the primary arguments, events, or findings.
Use succinct language without compromising the message.

Objectivity

Summarising is not about infusing personal opinions or interpretations. A quality summary will:

Stick to the facts as presented in the original content.
Avoid introducing personal biases or perspectives.
Represent the original author’s intent faithfully.

A summary is meant to simplify and make content accessible. This is only possible if the summary itself is easy to understand. Ensuring clarity involves:

Avoiding jargon or technical terms unless they are essential to the content. If they are used, they should be clearly defined.
Structuring sentences in a straightforward manner.
Making sure ideas are presented in a way that even someone unfamiliar with the topic can grasp the primary points.

A jumble of ideas, no matter how concise, will not make for a good summary. Coherence ensures that there’s a logical flow to the summarised content. A coherent summary will:

Maintain a logical sequence, often following the structure of the original content.
Use transition words or phrases to connect ideas and ensure smooth progression.
Group related ideas together to provide structure and avoid confusion.

Steps of Writing a Summary

The process of creating a compelling summary is not merely about cutting down content. It involves understanding, discerning, and crafting. Here is a step-by-step guide to writing a summary that encapsulates the essence of the original work:

Reading Actively

Engage deeply with the content to ensure a thorough understanding.

Read the entire document or work first to grasp its overall intent and structure.
On the second read, underline or highlight the standout points or pivotal moments.
Make brief notes in the margins or on a separate sheet, capturing the core ideas in your own words.

Identifying the Main Idea

Determine the backbone of the content, around which all other details revolve.

Ask yourself: “What is the primary message or theme the author wants to convey?”
This can often be found in the title, introduction, or conclusion of a piece.
Frame the main idea in a clear and concise statement to guide your summary.

List Key Supporting Points

Understand the pillars that uphold the main idea, providing evidence or depth to the primary message.

Refer back to the points you underlined or highlighted during your active reading.
Note major arguments, evidence, or examples that the author uses to back up the main idea.
Prioritise these points based on their significance to the main idea.

Draft the Summary

Convert your understanding into a condensed, coherent version of the original.

Start with a statement of the main idea.
Follow with the key supporting points, maintaining logical order.
Avoid including trivial details or examples unless they’re crucial to the primary message.
Use your own words, ensuring you are not plagiarising the original content.

Fine-tune your draft to ensure clarity, accuracy, and brevity.

Read your draft aloud to check for flow and coherence.
Ensure that your summary remains objective, avoiding any personal interpretations or biases.
Check the length. See if any non-essential details can be removed without sacrificing understanding if it is too lengthy.
Ensure clarity by ensuring the language is straightforward, and the main ideas are easily grasped.

The research done by our experts have:

Precision and Clarity
Zero Plagiarism
Authentic Sources

Dos and Don’ts of Summarising Key Points

Summarising, while seemingly straightforward, comes with its nuances. Properly condensing content demands a balance between brevity and fidelity to the original work. To aid in crafting exemplary summaries, here is a guide on the essential dos and don’ts:

Use your Own Words

This ensures that you have truly understood the content and are not merely parroting it. It also prevents issues of plagiarism.

Tip: After reading the original content, take a moment to reflect on it. Then, without looking at the source, write down the main points in your own words.

Attribute Sources Properly

Giving credit is both ethical and provides context to readers, helping them trace back to the original work if needed. How to cite sources correctly is a skill every writer should master.

Tip: Use signal phrases like “According to [Author/Source]…” or “As [Author/Source] points out…” to seamlessly incorporate attributions.

Ensure Accuracy of the Summarised Content

A summary should be a reliable reflection of the original content. Distorting or misrepresenting the original ideas compromises the integrity of the summary.

Tip: After drafting your summary, cross-check with the original content to ensure all key points are represented accurately and ensure you are referencing credible sources .

Avoid Copy-Pasting Chunks of Original Content

This not only raises plagiarism concerns but also shows a lack of genuine engagement with the material.

Tip: If a particular phrase or sentence from the original is pivotal and cannot be reworded without losing its essence, use block quotes , quotation marks, and attribute the source.

Do not Inject your Personal Opinion

A summary should be an objective reflection of the source material. Introducing personal biases or interpretations can mislead readers.

Tip: Stick to the facts and arguments presented in the original content. If you find yourself writing “I think” or “In my opinion,” reevaluate the sentence.

Do not Omit Crucial Information

While a summary is meant to be concise, it shouldn’t be at the expense of vital details that are essential to understanding the original content’s core message.

Tip: Prioritise information. Always include the main idea and its primary supports. If you are unsure whether a detail is crucial, consider its impact on the overall message.

Examples of Summaries

Here are a few examples that will help you get a clearer view of how to write a summary.

Example 1: Summary of a News Article

Original Article: The article reports on the recent discovery of a rare species of frog in the Amazon rainforest. The frog, named the “Emerald Whisperer” due to its unique green hue and the soft chirping sounds it makes, was found by a team of researchers from the University of Texas. The discovery is significant as it offers insights into the biodiversity of the region, and the Emerald Whisperer might also play a pivotal role in understanding the ecosystem balance.

Summary: Researchers from the University of Texas have discovered a unique frog, termed the “Emerald Whisperer,” in the Amazon rainforest. This finding sheds light on the region’s biodiversity and underscores the importance of the frog in ecological studies.

Example 2: Summary of a Research Paper

Original Paper: In a study titled “The Impact of Urbanisation on Bee Populations,” researchers conducted a year-long observation on bee colonies in three urban areas and three rural areas. Using specific metrics like colony health, bee productivity, and population size, the study found that urban environments saw a 30% decline in bee populations compared to rural settings. The research attributes this decline to factors like pollution, reduced green spaces, and increased temperatures in urban areas.

Summary: A study analysing the effects of urbanisation on bee colonies found a significant 30% decrease in bee populations in urban settings compared to rural areas. The decline is linked to urban factors such as pollution, diminished greenery, and elevated temperatures.

Example 3: Summary of a Novel

Original Story: In the novel “Winds of Fate,” protagonist Clara is trapped in a timeless city where memories dictate reality. Throughout her journey, she encounters characters from her past, present, and imagined future. Battling her own perceptions and a menacing shadow figure, Clara seeks an elusive gateway to return to her real world. In the climax, she confronts the shadow, which turns out to be her own fear, and upon overcoming it, she finds her way back, realising that reality is subjective.

Summary: “Winds of Fate” follows Clara’s adventures in a surreal city shaped by memories. Confronting figures from various phases of her life and battling a symbolic shadow of her own fear, Clara eventually discovers that reality’s perception is malleable and subjective.

Frequently Asked Questions

How long is a summary.

A summary condenses a larger piece of content, capturing its main points and essence. It is usually one-fourth of the original content.

What is a summary?

A summary is a concise representation of a larger text or content, highlighting its main ideas and points. It distils complex information into a shorter form, allowing readers to quickly grasp the essence of the original material without delving into extensive details. Summaries prioritise clarity, brevity, and accuracy.

When should I write a summary?

Write a summary when you need to condense lengthy content for easier comprehension and recall. It’s useful in academic settings, professional reports, presentations, and research to highlight key points. Summaries aid in comparing multiple sources, preparing for discussions, and sharing essential details of extensive materials efficiently with others.

How can I summarise a source without plagiarising?

To summarise without plagiarising: Read the source thoroughly, understand its main ideas, and then write the summary in your own words. Avoid copying phrases verbatim. Attribute the source properly. Use paraphrasing techniques and cross-check your summary against the original to ensure distinctiveness while retaining accuracy. Always prioritise understanding over direct replication.

What is the difference between a summary and an abstract?

A summary condenses a text, capturing its main points from various content types like books, articles, or movies. An abstract, typically found in research papers and scientific articles, provides a brief overview of the study’s purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. Both offer concise versions, but abstracts are more structured and specific.

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

Closed-Loop Management: The Key to Customer Centricity

Sep 3, 2024

Net Trust Score: Tool for Measuring Trust in Organization

Sep 2, 2024

Why You Should Attend XDAY 2024

Aug 30, 2024

Alchemer vs Qualtrics: Find out which one you should choose

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
Tuesday CX Thoughts (TCXT)
Uncategorized
What’s Coming Up
Workforce Intelligence

How to Write a Research Paper Summary

Journal submission: Tips to submit better manuscripts | Paperpal

One of the most important skills you can imbibe as an academician is to know how to summarize a research paper. During your academic journey, you may need to write a summary of findings in research quite often and for varied reasons – be it to write an introduction for a peer-reviewed publication , to submit a critical review, or to simply create a useful database for future referencing.

It can be quite challenging to effectively write a research paper summary for often complex work, which is where a pre-determined workflow can help you optimize the process. Investing time in developing this skill can also help you improve your scientific acumen, increasing your efficiency and productivity at work. This article illustrates some useful advice on how to write a research summary effectively. But, what is research summary in the first place?

A research paper summary is a crisp, comprehensive overview of a research paper, which encapsulates the purpose, findings, methods, conclusions, and relevance of a study. A well-written research paper summary is an indicator of how well you have understood the author’s work.

Draft a research paper summary in minutes with paperpal. click here to start writing.

2. Invest enough time to understand the topic deeply

Use Paperpal to summarize your research paper. Click here to get started!

Mistakes to avoid while writing your research paper summary

Let Paperpal do the heavy lifting. Click here to start writing your summary now!

Frequently asked questions (faq), how to write a research paper summary.

Writing a good research paper summary comes with practice and skill. Here is some useful advice on how to write a research paper summary effectively.

1. Determine the focus of your summary

Before you begin to write a summary of research papers, determine the aim of your research paper summary. This will give you more clarity on how to summarize a research paper, including what to highlight and where to find the information you need, which accelerates the entire process. If you are aiming for the summary to be a supporting document or a proof of principle for your current research findings, then you can look for elements that are relevant to your work.

On the other hand, if your research summary is intended to be a critical review of the research article, you may need to use a completely different lens while reading the paper and conduct your own research regarding the accuracy of the data presented. Then again, if the research summary is intended to be a source of information for future referencing, you will likely have a different approach. This makes determining the focus of your summary a key step in the process of writing an effective research paper summary.

2. Invest enough time to understand the topic deeply

In order to author an effective research paper summary, you need to dive into the topic of the research article. Begin by doing a quick scan for relevant information under each section of the paper. The abstract is a great starting point as it helps you to quickly identify the top highlights of the research article, speeding up the process of understanding the key findings in the paper. Be sure to do a careful read of the research paper, preparing notes that describe each section in your own words to put together a summary of research example or a first draft. This will save your time and energy in revisiting the paper to confirm relevant details and ease the entire process of writing a research paper summary.

When reading papers, be sure to acknowledge and ignore any pre-conceived notions that you might have regarding the research topic. This will not only help you understand the topic better but will also help you develop a more balanced perspective, ensuring that your research paper summary is devoid of any personal opinions or biases.

3. Keep the summary crisp, brief and engaging

A research paper summary is usually intended to highlight and explain the key points of any study, saving the time required to read through the entire article. Thus, your primary goal while compiling the summary should be to keep it as brief, crisp and readable as possible. Usually, a short introduction followed by 1-2 paragraphs is adequate for an effective research article summary. Avoid going into too much technical detail while describing the main results and conclusions of the study. Rather focus on connecting the main findings of the study to the hypothesis , which can make the summary more engaging. For example, instead of simply reporting an original finding – “the graph showed a decrease in the mortality rates…”, you can say, “there was a decline in the number of deaths, as predicted by the authors while beginning the study…” or “there was a decline in the number of deaths, which came as a surprise to the authors as this was completely unexpected…”.

Unless you are writing a critical review of the research article, the language used in your research paper summaries should revolve around reporting the findings, not assessing them. On the other hand, if you intend to submit your summary as a critical review, make sure to provide sufficient external evidence to support your final analysis. Invest sufficient time in editing and proofreading your research paper summary thoroughly to ensure you’ve captured the findings accurately. You can also get an external opinion on the preliminary draft of the research paper summary from colleagues or peers who have not worked on the research topic.

Mistakes to avoid while writing your research paper summary

Now that you’ve understood how to summarize a research paper, watch out for these red flags while writing your summary.

Not paying attention to the word limit and recommended format, especially while submitting a critical review
Evaluating the findings instead of maintaining an objective , unbiased view while reading the research paper
Skipping the essential editing step , which can help eliminate avoidable errors and ensure that the language does not misrepresent the findings
Plagiarism, it is critical to write in your own words or paraphrase appropriately when reporting the findings in your scientific article summary

We hope the recommendations listed above will help answer the question of how to summarize a research paper and enable you to tackle the process effectively.

Summarize your research paper with Paperpal

Paperpal, an AI academic writing assistant, is designed to support academics at every step of the academic writing process. Built on over two decades of experience helping researchers get published and trained on millions of published research articles, Paperpal offers human precision at machine speed. Paperpal Copilot, with advanced generative AI features, can help academics achieve 2x the writing in half the time, while transforming how they research and write.

How to summarize a research paper with Paperpal?

To generate your research paper summary, simply login to the platform and use the Paperpal Copilot Summary feature to create a flawless summary of your work. Here’s a step-by-step process to help you craft a summary in minutes:

Paste relevant research articles to be summarized into Paperpal; the AI will scan each section and extract key information.
In minutes, Paperpal will generate a comprehensive summary that showcases the main paper highlights while adhering to academic writing conventions.
Check the content to polish and refine the language, ensure your own voice, and add citations or references as needed.

The abstract and research paper summary serve similar purposes but differ in scope, length, and placement. The abstract is a concise yet detailed overview of the research, placed at the beginning of a paper, with the aim of providing readers with a quick understanding of the paper’s content and to help them decide whether to read the full article. Usually limited to a few hundred words, it highlights the main objectives, methods, results, and conclusions of the study. On the other hand, a research paper summary provides a crisp account of the entire research paper. Its purpose is to provide a brief recap for readers who may want to quickly grasp the main points of the research without reading the entire paper in detail.

The structure of a research summary can vary depending on the specific requirements or guidelines provided by the target publication or institution. A typical research summary includes the following key sections: introduction (including the research question or objective), methodology (briefly describing the research design and methods), results (summarizing the key findings), discussion (highlighting the implications and significance of the findings), and conclusion (providing a summary of the main points and potential future directions).

The summary of a research paper is important because it provides a condensed overview of the study’s purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. It allows you to quickly grasp the main points and relevance of the research without having to read the entire paper. Research summaries can also be an invaluable way to communicate research findings to a broader audience, such as policymakers or the general public.

When writing a research paper summary, it is crucial to avoid plagiarism by properly attributing the original authors’ work. To learn how to summarize a research paper while avoiding plagiarism, follow these critical guidelines: (1) Read the paper thoroughly to understand the main points and key findings. (2) Use your own words and sentence structures to restate the information, ensuring that the research paper summary reflects your understanding of the paper. (3) Clearly indicate when you are paraphrasing or quoting directly from the original paper by using appropriate citation styles. (4) Cite the original source for any specific ideas, concepts, or data that you include in your summary. (5) Review your summary to ensure it accurately represents the research paper while giving credit to the original authors.

Paperpal is a comprehensive AI writing toolkit that helps students and researchers achieve 2x the writing in half the time. It leverages 21+ years of STM experience and insights from millions of research articles to provide in-depth academic writing, language editing, and submission readiness support to help you write better, faster.

Get accurate academic translations, rewriting support, grammar checks, vocabulary suggestions, and generative AI assistance that delivers human precision at machine speed. Try for free or upgrade to Paperpal Prime starting at US$19 a month to access premium features, including consistency, plagiarism, and 30+ submission readiness checks to help you succeed.

Experience the future of academic writing – Sign up to Paperpal and start writing for free!

PhD Dissertation Outline: Creating a Roadmap to Success

How ai can improve the academic writing experience, you may also like, how to choose a dissertation topic, how to write an abstract in research papers..., how to write dissertation acknowledgements, how to write a high-quality conference paper, measuring academic success: definition & strategies for excellence, is it ethical to use ai-generated abstracts without..., what are journal guidelines on using generative ai..., should you use ai tools like chatgpt for..., 9 steps to publish a research paper, how to make translating academic papers less challenging.

How to write a research summary

A research summary is a required task during academic research, and sometimes, you might need to prepare one during an organization's research project.

Most people find a research summary challenging. You must condense complex research material into an informative, easy-to-understand article, usually with a minimum of 300-500 words.

This blog article will guide you through all the steps required to make writing your research summary easier.

What is a Research Summary?

A research summary is a concise overview of a research paper or project. It is designed to provide the reader with essential research insights without reading the entire document. Research summaries are commonly required in academic settings and are fundamental in disseminating knowledge concisely.

The key components of a Research Summary

Objective writing.

It is crucial to maintain objectivity when writing a research summary. The summary should reflect the author's ideas and findings without including personal opinions. This requires the summarizer to convey the main points and intent of the original research accurately while remaining neutral.

Focus and Clarity

Determining the focus of the summary is a critical first step. It involves deciding whether to create a "global" summary, which covers all main ideas, or a "selective" summary, which focuses on specific aspects of the research. The summary should be clear, engaging, and concise, capturing the essence of the study in a brief format.

Essential Elements

A good summary should include the research's foundation, the theoretical framework, and a clear outline of the empirical findings. It should also identify any research gaps addressed by the study. The content should be well-organized, starting with a brief introduction to the topic and then discussing the research methods, results, and conclusions.

Tips for writing a compelling Research Summary

Below is a checklist of helpful research paper tips worth considering when writing research summaries:

Considering the target audience

The golden rule of writing is always to consider your target audience; a research summary is no exception. Why? Different people have different needs, and your paper should meet the needs and preferences of the target audience. Ask yourself, “Who am I writing for?” write down the answer, and you’ll find it easier to pinpoint research articles for the summary.

Being aware of the bigger picture

Remembering a complete and coherent picture of the story delivered by the original article is crucial. It might be helpful to reread or scan the content to remind yourself of the declared goals, hypotheses, key evidence, and conclusions—this awareness offers a constant sense of direction, which ensures that no written sentence is out of context.

Research outline

Consider writing a detailed research outline before writing a summary research draft.

Sketch the main elements of the conclusion before writing it for several reasons:

Validate/invalidate hypotheses.
Enumerate key evidence supporting or invalidating them and list potential implications.
Mention the subject's importance.
Mention study limitations and future directions for research.

Consider writing the introduction and discussion last. It makes sense first to list hypotheses, goals, questions, and results. The information in the introduction and discussion can be adapted as needed (for instance, to match a word count limit). Additionally, based on written paragraphs, you can quickly generate your discussion with the help of a conclusion tool.

Visual representation

it’s not just about writing a long text and analysis of some subject by using the information you find, both research and its summary need visuals for full effect. Sometimes, a simple diagram or graph can say much of the information you tried to convey. A common mistake students make is leaving visuals for the original file and omitting them in the summary. Feel free to include tables, figures, and other visual supplements to this paper too.

Avoiding plagiarism

It is very tempting to "borrow" or quote entire phrases from an article, provided how well-written these are. However, you need to summarize your paper without plagiarizing; only paraphrasing is allowed, and it's best to do it carefully. The best way to stay safe is by formulating your thoughts from scratch.

Keeping the word count in check

The general rule of thumb is that the summary should meet the criteria of no more than 10% of the number of pages in the original document. In most cases, it takes 2 and 4 pages.

The writing style

When summarizing content, it should be impersonal, precise, and purely evidence-based. A personal view or an attitude should be provided only in the critical section.

Ask a colleague to read your summary and test whether they can understand everything without reading the article—this will help ensure that you haven't skipped any vital content, explanations, concepts, etc.

Using dedicated AI Tools

Leveraging tools like Wiseone can help by generating a thorough summary with key takeaways to remember, ensuring it remains concise and focused on the main ideas.

How to write a Research Summary

Once the requirements of the fundamentals for starting a research summary are satisfied, you can begin to write using the following format:

Why was the research done? – A clear description of why the research was embarked on and the hypothesis being tested.
Who was surveyed? – The research study should have details of the source of your information. If it was via a survey, you should document who the survey participants were and why they were selected.
What was the methodology? – Discuss the methodology regarding what kind of survey method you adopted. Was it a face-to-face interview, a phone interview, or a focus group setting?
What were the key findings? - This is perhaps the most vital part of the process. What discoveries did you make after the testing? This part should be based on raw facts free from any personal bias.
Conclusion: What conclusions were drawn from the findings?
Takeaways and action points: This is where the views and perceptions can be reflected. Here, you can now share your recommendations or action points.
Identify the article's focal point: To grasp the content covered in the research paper, you can skim the article first to understand the essential part of the research paper.
Analyze and understand the topic and article: Writing a research paper summary involves familiarizing yourself with the current state of knowledge, key definitions, concepts, and models. This information is often gleaned while reading the literature review. Please note that only a deep understanding ensures efficient and accurate content summarization.
Make notes as you read: Highlight and summarize each paragraph as you read. You would further condense your notes to create a draft forming your research summary.

How to Structure Your Research Summary

Title

The title announces the exact topic/area of analysis and can even be formulated to briefly announce key finding(s) or argument(s) delivered.

Abstract

An abstract is a concise and comprehensive description of the study, present virtually in any academic article (the length varies greatly, typically within 100-500 words). Unlike a scholarly article, your research summary is expected to have a much shorter abstract.

Introduction

The introduction is an essential part of any research summary, which provides the necessary context (the literature review) that helps introduce readers to the subject by presenting the current state of the investigation, an important concept or definition, etc. This section describes the subject's importance (or may not, for instance, when it is self-evident). Finally, an introduction typically lists investigation questions and hypotheses advanced by authors, which are usually mentioned in detail in any research summary (obviously, doing this is only possible after identifying these elements in the original paper).

Methodology

Regardless of location, this section details experimental or data analysis methods (e.g., experiments, surveys, sampling, or statistical analysis). Many of these details would have to be omitted in a research summary; hence, it is essential to understand what is most important to mention.

Results section –

This section lists evidence obtained from all experiments with some primary data analysis, conclusions, observations, and primary interpretations being made. It is typically the most significant section of any analysis paper, so it must be concisely rewritten, which implies understanding which content is worth omitting and keeping.

Discussion

The discussion is where experts discuss results in the context of current knowledge. This section contains interpretations of results, theoretical models explaining the observed results, study strengths and limitations, complementary future exploration, conclusions, etc. All these are essential elements that need to be conveyed in summary.

Conclusion

In the conclusion, hypotheses are revisited and validated or denied, based on how convincing the evidence is (key lines of evidence could be highlighted).

References

References mention those cited works directly in your summary – obviously, one has to provide appropriate citations, at least for the original article (this often suffices). Mentioning other works might be relevant when your critical opinion is also required (supported with new unrelated evidence).

Writing a practical research summary involves a blend of comprehension, objectivity, and clarity. Focusing on the main ideas, maintaining neutrality, and organizing the summary effectively can create a valuable and insightful overview that serves the audience's needs, whether for academic purposes or general knowledge.

What is a research summary?

What are the key components of a research summaries.

Objectivity : Maintaining objectivity is crucial when writing a research summary. The summary should reflect the author's ideas and findings without including personal opinions. This requires conveying the main points and intent of the original research accurately while remaining neutral.

Clarity and focus: Determining the focus of the summary is a critical first step. It involves the decision to create either a "global" summary, which covers all main ideas, or a "selective" summary, which focuses on specific aspects of the research. The summary should be clear, engaging, and concise, capturing the essence of the study in a brief format.

Essential elements: A good research summary should include the research's foundation, the theoretical framework, and a clear outline of the empirical findings. It should also identify any research gaps addressed by the study. The content should be well-organized, starting with a brief introduction to the topic and then discussing the research methods, results, and conclusions.

What are the tips for writing a compelling research summary?

Thinking about the target audience
Keeping the writing style in check

What is the structure of a research summary?

Introduction
Results section

In the conclusion, hypotheses are revisited and validated or denied based on how convincing the evidence is (key lines of evidence could be highlighted).

Enhance your web search, Boost your reading productivity with Wiseone

Top AI tools for research in May 2024

13 simple & effective ways to gain knowledge, wiseone pro: your web search & reading copilot.

Verify originality of an essay

Get ideas for your paper

Cite sources with ease

Research Summary Structure, Samples, Writing Steps, and Useful Suggestions

Updated 28 Aug 2024

What is a Research Summary and Why Is It Important?

A research summary is a type of paper designed to provide a brief overview of a given study - typically, an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal. It is a frequent type of task encountered in US colleges and universities, both in humanitarian and exact sciences, which is due to how important it is to teach students to properly interact with and interpret scientific literature and in particular, academic papers, which are the key way through which new ideas, theories, and evidence are presented to experts in many fields of knowledge. A research summary typically preserves the structure/sections of the article it focuses on. Get the grades you want with our professional research paper helper .

How to Write a Research Summary – Typical Steps

Follow these clear steps to help avoid typical mistakes and productivity bottlenecks, allowing for a more efficient through your writing process:

Skim the article in order to get a rough idea of the content covered in each section and to understand the relative importance of content, for instance, how important different lines of evidence are (this helps you understand which sections you should focus on more when reading in detail). Make sure you understand the task and your professor's requirements before reading the article. In this step, you can also decide whether to write a summary by yourself or ask for a cheap research paper writing service instead.
Analyze and understand the topic and article. Writing a summary of a research paper involves becoming very familiar with the topic – sometimes, it is impossible to understand the content without learning about the current state of knowledge, as well as key definitions, concepts, models. This is often performed while reading the literature review. As for the paper itself, understanding it means understanding analysis questions, hypotheses, listed evidence, how strongly this evidence supports the hypotheses, as well as analysis implications. Keep in mind that only a deep understanding allows one to efficiently and accurately summarize the content.
Make notes as you read. You could highlight or summarize each paragraph with a brief sentence that would record the key idea delivered in it (obviously, some paragraphs deserve more attention than others). However, be careful not to engage in extensive writing while still reading. This is important because, while reading, you might realize that some sections you initially considered important might actually be less important compared to information that follows. As for underlining or highlighting – do these only with the most important evidence, otherwise, there is little use in “coloring” everything without distinction.
Assemble a draft by bringing together key evidence and notes from each paragraph/ section. Make sure that all elements characteristic of a research summary are covered (as detailed below).
Find additional literature for forming or supporting your critical view (this is if your critical view/position is required), for instance, judgments about limitations of the study or contradictory evidence.

Read Also: Criminal Justice Research Topics To Impress Your Teacher

Research Summary Structure

The research summary format resembles that found in the original paper (just a concise version of it). Content from all sections should be covered and reflected upon, regardless of whether corresponding headings are present or not. Key structural elements of any research summary are as follows:

Title – it announces the exact topic/area of analysis and can even be formulated to briefly announce key finding(s) or argument(s) delivered.
Abstract – this is a very concise and comprehensive description of the study, present virtually in any academic article (the length varies greatly, typically within 100-500 words). Unlike an academic article, your research summary is expected to have a much shorter abstract.
Introduction – this is an essential part of any research summary which provides necessary context (the literature review) that helps introduce readers to the subject by presenting the current state of the investigation, an important concept or definition, etc. This section might also describe the subject’s importance (or might not, for instance, when it is self-evident). Finally, an introduction typically lists investigation questions and hypotheses advanced by authors, which are normally mentioned in detail in any research summary (obviously, doing this is only possible after identifying these elements in the original paper).
Methodology – regardless of its location, this section details experimental methods or data analysis methods used (e.g. types of experiments, surveys, sampling, or statistical analysis). In a research summary, many of these details would have to be omitted; hence, it is important to understand what is most important to mention.
Results section – this section lists in detail evidence obtained from all experiments with some primary data analysis, conclusions, observations, and primary interpretations being made. It is typically the largest section of any analysis paper, so, it has to be concisely rewritten, which implies understanding which content is worth omitting and worth keeping.
Discussion – this is where results are being discussed in the context of current knowledge among experts. This section contains interpretations of results, theoretical models explaining the observed results, study strengths and especially limitations, complementary future exploration to be undertaken, conclusions, etc. All these are important elements that need to be conveyed in a summary.
Conclusion – in the original article, this section could be absent or merged with “Discussion”. Specific research summary instructions might require this to be a standalone section. In a conclusion, hypotheses are revisited and validated or denied, based on how convincing the evidence is (key lines of evidence could be highlighted).
References – this section is for mentioning those cited works directly in your summary – obviously, one has to provide appropriate citations at least for the original article (this often suffices). Mentioning other works might be relevant when your critical opinion is also required (supported with new unrelated evidence).

Note that if you need some model research summary papers done before you start writing yourself (this will help familiarize you with essay structure and various sections), you could simply recruit our company by following the link provided below.

Need more writing assistance?

Connect with our top writers and receive a research paper sample crafted to your needs.

Research Summary Writing Tips

Below is a checklist of useful research paper tips worth considering when writing research summaries:

Make sure you are always aware of the bigger picture/ direction. You need to keep in mind a complete and coherent picture of the story delivered by the original article. It might be helpful to reread or scan it quickly to remind yourself of the declared goals, hypotheses, key evidence, and conclusions – this awareness offers a constant sense of direction, which ensures that no written sentence is out of context. It is useful doing this even after you have written a fourth, a third, or half of the paper (to make sure no deviation occurs).
Consider writing a detailed research outline before writing the draft – it might be of great use when structuring your paper. A research summary template is also very likely to help you structure your paper.
Sketch the main elements of the conclusion before writing it. Do this for a number of reasons: validate/invalidate hypotheses; enumerate key evidence supporting or invalidating them, list potential implications; mention the subject’s importance; mention study limitations and future directions for research. In order to include them all, it is useful having them written down and handy.
Consider writing the introduction and discussion last. It makes sense to first list hypotheses, goals, questions, and key results. Latter, information contained in the introduction and discussion can be adapted as needed (for instance, to match a preset word count limit). Also, on the basis of already written paragraphs, you can easily generate your discussion with the help of a conclusion tool ; it works online and is absolutely free of charge. Apart from this, follow a natural order.
Include visuals – you could summarize a lot of text using graphs or charts while simultaneously improving readability.
Be very careful not to plagiarize. It is very tempting to “borrow” or quote entire phrases from an article, provided how well-written these are, but you need to summarize your paper without plagiarizing at all (forget entirely about copy-paste – it is only allowed to paraphrase and even this should be done carefully). The best way to stay safe is by formulating your own thoughts from scratch.
Keep your word count in check. You don’t want your summary to be as long as the original paper (just reformulated). In addition, you might need to respect an imposed word count limit, which requires being careful about how much you write for each section.
Proofread your work for grammar, spelling, wordiness, and formatting issues (feel free to use our convert case tool for titles, headings, subheadings, etc.).
Watch your writing style – when summarizing content, it should be impersonal, precise, and purely evidence-based. A personal view/attitude should be provided only in the critical section (if required).
Ask a colleague to read your summary and test whether he/she could understand everything without reading the article – this will help ensure that you haven’t skipped some important content, explanations, concepts, etc.

For additional information on formatting, structure, and for more writing tips, check out these research paper guidelines on our website. Remember that we cover most research papers writing services you can imagine and can offer help at various stages of your writing project, including proofreading, editing, rewriting for plagiarism elimination, and style adjustment.

Research Summary Example 1

Below are some defining elements of a sample research summary written from an imaginary article.

Title – “The probability of an unexpected volcanic eruption in Yellowstone” Introduction – this section would list those catastrophic consequences hitting our country in case of a massive eruption and the importance of analyzing this matter. Hypothesis – An eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano would be preceded by intense precursory activity manifesting a few weeks up to a few years in advance. Results – these could contain a report of statistical data from multiple volcanic eruptions happening worldwide looking specifically at activity that preceded these events (in particular, how early each type of activity was detected). Discussion and conclusion – Given that Yellowstone is continuously monitored by scientists and that signs of an eruption are normally detected much in advance and at least a few days in advance, the hypothesis is confirmed. This could find application in creating emergency plans detailing an organized evacuation campaign and other response measures.

Research Summary Example 2

Below is another sample sketch, also from an imaginary article.

Title – “The frequency of extreme weather events in US in 2000-2008 as compared to the ‘50s” Introduction – Weather events bring immense material damage and cause human victims. Hypothesis – Extreme weather events are significantly more frequent nowadays than in the ‘50s Results – these could list the frequency of several categories of extreme events now and then: droughts and associated fires, massive rainfall/snowfall and associated floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, arctic cold waves, etc. Discussion and conclusion – Several types of extreme events indeed became significantly more frequent recently, confirming this hypothesis. This increasing frequency correlates reliably with rising CO2 levels in atmosphere and growing temperatures worldwide and in the absence of another recent major global change that could explain a higher frequency of disasters but also knowing how growing temperature disturbs weather patterns, it is natural to assume that global warming (CO2) causes this increase in frequency. This, in turn, suggests that this increased frequency of disasters is not a short-term phenomenon but is here to stay until we address CO2 levels.

Get professional fact-checking and editing!

Ensure accuracy and enhance quality in your papers. Our experts provide thorough fact-checking and editing for just $7/page.

Let Professionals Help With Your Research Summary

Writing a research summary has its challenges, but becoming familiar with its structure (i.e. the structure of an article), understanding well the article that needs to be summarized, and adhering to recommended guidelines will help the process go smoothly.

Simply create your account in a few clicks, place an order by uploading your instructions, and upload or indicate the article requiring a summary and choose a preferred writer for this task (according to experience, rating, bidding price). Our transparent system puts you in control, allowing you to set priorities as you wish (to our knowledge, few competitors have something equivalent in place). Obviously, we can help with many other essay types such as critical thinking essay, argumentative essay, etc. In particular, the research paper definition article on our website highlights a few popular paper types we work with.

Another unique advantage is that we allow and encourage you to communicate directly with your writer (if you wish) guiding his or her work – feel free to request partial drafts, to clarify potential issues you worry about, or even to revise papers as often as needed (for free) until you achieve a satisfactory result. We’ve implemented a system where money is released to writers only after students are fully satisfied with what they get. If you feel like giving it a try, it’s easy and worry-free! Just follow the link below.

ORDER RESEARCH PAPER

Was this helpful?

Thanks for your feedback.

Written by Paul Calderon

As a trained writer and an expert in book publishing and finalization, Paul knows how to engage readers in his text. As an author himself, Paul never misses a chance to write. Writing is his true passion as he explores technology, education, and entertainment among many popular subjects these days. His mentoring experience and skills of creative guidance make his writing accessible, clear, and fun to follow.

How to Write a Research Paper in APA and MLA Format

Properly formatting a research paper in APA or MLA style is essential for several reasons. First, it ensures that your work adheres to the academic...

What is qualitative research? Approaches, methods, and examples

Students in social sciences frequently seek to understand how people feel, think, and behave in specific situations or relationships that evolve ov...

Join our 150K of happy users

Get original papers written according to your instructions
Save time for what matters most

EXPLORE Random Article
Happiness Hub

How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper

Last Updated: July 10, 2020 References

This article was reviewed by Annaliese Dunne and by wikiHow staff writer, Hannah Madden . Annaliese Dunne is a Middle School English Teacher. With over 10 years of teaching experience, her areas of expertise include writing and grammar instruction, as well as teaching reading comprehension. She is also an experienced freelance writer. She received her Bachelor's degree in English. This article has been viewed 28,780 times.

Writing a summary of an academic research paper is an important skill, and it shows that you understand all of the relevant information presented to you. However, writing a summary can be tough, since it requires you to be completely objective and keep any analysis or criticisms to yourself. By keeping your goal in mind as you read the paper and focusing on the key points, you can write a succinct, accurate summary of a research paper to prove that you understood the overall conclusion.

Reading the Research Paper

Step 1 Figure out the focus of your summary.

For instance, if you’re supporting an argument in your own research paper, focus on the elements that are similar to yours.
Or, if you’re comparing and contrasting methodology, focus on the methods and the significance of the results.

Step 2 Scan through the article to pick out important information.

You can also read the abstract of the paper as a good example of what the authors find to be important in their article.

Step 3 Read the article fully 1 to 2 times.

Depending on how long and dense the paper is, your initial reading could take you up to an hour or more.

Step 4 Underline or highlight important information.

The important information will usually be toward the end of the paper as the authors explain their findings and conclusions.

Step 5 Take notes summarizing sections in your own words.

Writing a summary without plagiarizing, or copying the paper, is really important. Writing notes in your own words will help you get into the mindset of relaying information in your own way.

Including Relevant Information

Step 1 Aim to report the findings, not evaluate them.

For example, “The methods used in this paper are not up to standards and require more testing to be conclusive.” is an analysis.
”The methods used in this paper include an in-depth survey and interview session with each candidate.” is a summary.

If you’re writing a summary for class, your professor may specify how long your summary should be.
Some summaries can even be as short as one sentence.

Step 3 State the research question and hypothesis.

”Environmental conditions in North Carolina pose a threat to frogs and toads.”

Step 4 Describe the testing and analyzation methods.

For example: “According to the climate model, frog and toad populations have been decreasing at a rapid rate over the past 10 years, and are on track to decrease even further in the coming years.”

Step 5 Talk about the results and how significant they were.

For example: “Smith and Herman (2008) argue that by decreasing greenhouse gases, frog and toad populations could reach historical levels within 20 years, and the climate model projections support that statement.”
You can add in the authors and year of publication at any time during your summary.

Step 6 Edit your summary for accuracy and flow.

If you have time, try reading your summary to someone who hasn’t read the original paper and see if they understand the key points of the article.

Expert Q&A

Make sure you fully understand the paper before you start writing the summary. Thanks Helpful 2 Not Helpful 0
Plagiarism can have serious consequences in the academic world, so make sure you’re writing your summary in your own words. [12] X Research source Thanks Helpful 0 Not Helpful 0

↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
↑ https://www.ufv.ca/media/assets/academic-success-centre/handouts/Summarizing-a-Scholarly-Journal-Article-rev2018.pdf
↑ https://integrity.mit.edu/handbook/academic-writing/summarizing
↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/summary-using-it-wisely/
↑ https://davidson.libguides.com/c.php?g=349327&p=2361763

About this article

Reader Success Stories

Mark Jimenez

Oct 18, 2022

Did this article help you?

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

What is a Summary? An In-depth Guide on Definition, Types, and Examples

Understanding what a summary contains is fundamental to academic success. It represents a concise restatement of an argument, paper, or lecture's main points, facilitating better understanding, and the ability to highlight connections between concepts.

The term 'summary' itself, alongside variations such as 'overview' and 'review', plays a critical role in both written and oral academic communication, proving indispensable for those seeking to grasp and convey key ideas efficiently.

This article aims to break down in detail, the definition of a summary, including what a summary looks like and its essential elements, and delving into the various types of summaries. It will also provide a detailed look at the summary structure, summary format, and the components and steps crucial in crafting an effective summary, complemented by practical summary writing examples.

Through understanding the nuances of summary design and identifying common pitfalls, readers will gain insights into optimizing their summary writing skills for academic and professional success.

What is a Summary?

Summary is a distilled rendition of content that encapsulates a broad understanding of a subject matter. This condensation is aimed at being concise, accurate, and readily comprehensible.

Purpose and Structure of a Summary

The primary aim of a summary is to conserve the reader's time and effort, offering a pathway to grasp the key themes of more extensive work in a format that is both accessible and manageable. A typical summary structure encompasses an introduction, body, and conclusion, with the introduction specifying the title of the original work, its author, and the main topic. Importantly, a summary should avoid personal opinions or interpretations, and represent the ideas and arguments of the original work. This objective stance ensures that the summary remains a true reflection of the source material, devoid of subjective bias.

The term ‘summary’ can be used both as a noun as well as an adjective. Let’s see how

As a Noun : A summary is characterized by its ability to offer a short, clear exposition that conveys the principal facts or ideas about a topic. This encapsulation is a comprehensive and brief abstract, spotlighting previously stated facts or statements. The essence of summarizing lies in its capacity to distill a larger body of work into its main points and essential details, presenting them in a succinct format. Synonyms of summary include abstract, breviary, and epitome, among others, each underscoring the brevity and comprehensiveness of the summary.
As an Adjective : The term 'summary' is also used as an adjective, denoting actions carried out swiftly, often bypassing the conventional process or discussion. This usage highlights the efficiency and directness of summary actions, especially in contexts requiring prompt decision-making or succinct communication. Synonyms for this usage include direct, prompt, etc,

Types of Summaries

Summaries play a crucial role across various domains, serving to condense and clarify content for different purposes. Here, we explore the diverse types of summaries, each tailored to specific needs and contexts:

Academic Summaries: Utilized in scholarly writing, these summaries distill complex information into digestible parts, aiding in the comprehension of intricate ideas and arguments.
Meeting Summaries: Essential for both attendees and absentees, they encapsulate discussions, decisions, and subsequent steps, ensuring alignment and shared understanding.
Medical Summaries: Offer a comprehensive view of a patient's health status, treatments, and prognosis, valuable for healthcare providers, patients, and families alike.
Business Document Overviews: Summarize key elements of documents like business plans or annual reports, providing a high-level perspective.
Book Summaries: Found on back covers or online, they give potential readers insight into themes, characters, and plot, aiding in decision-making without revealing too much.
Product Summaries: Highlight features, benefits, and uses of products, assisting customers in making informed purchasing decisions.
News Summaries (Abstracts): Allow readers to grasp the main points of news stories quickly, saving time and effort by avoiding full-article reads.
Abstracts and Synopses: Serve as concise presentations of long texts or articles, helping readers decide on engaging with the full material. Abstracts highlight major points, while synopses chronologically offer brief overviews of content.
Literary and Film Reviews: These summaries not only recount the narrative but also include evaluations of the significance and impact of the work, often incorporating the reviewer's insights.
Policy and Research Summaries: Analyze and evaluate content, focusing on the implications and usefulness of the findings for policy development and professional learning.

Components of a Good Summary

Creating an effective summary requires adherence to certain foundational components that ensure clarity, relevance, and coherence. These components are critical in encapsulating the essence of the original text while making it accessible and informative for the reader. Below are the key components and steps involved in crafting a good summary:

Main Idea or Thesis: The summary must clearly identify the central theme or thesis of the original work. This serves as the anchor around which the summary is structured.
Essential Supporting Points: It should include all crucial arguments or points that support the main idea, ensuring the reader grasps the full scope of the original work without needing to refer to it.
Structure and Coherence: Present the author's points in a logical order, starting with the thesis or main idea and following with supporting details. This structure aids in the reader's comprehension.
Comprehensiveness and Conciseness: While being comprehensive enough to cover the original work's significant points, a summary should also be concise, avoiding unnecessary details or digressions.
Objective Representation: Maintain an objective tone, refraining from including personal opinions or biases. The goal is to reflect the original text's content and tone accurately.

Summary Design and Structure

Designing and structuring a summary requires a meticulous approach to ensure that the essence of the original text is captured accurately and concisely. The following outlines the key steps and considerations for crafting an effective summary:

Start with an introductory sentence that includes the text's title , author , and the main point . This sets a clear context for the reader.
Example : "In 'The Art of War' by Sun Tzu, the primary focus is on strategies for military success."
Summaries must be written in your own words , reflecting only the ideas of the original text to maintain authenticity.
Identify and list the significant sub-claims used by the author to support the main point. This helps in understanding the structure of the original argument or narrative.
Select three supporting passages from the text, quoting them word-for-word for accuracy. Cite each passage clearly by mentioning the work, author, and paragraph number.
Example of citation : "(Tzu, 'The Art of War', para. 5)."
Utilize diagrams or mind maps for complex summaries, such as story summaries or film analyses. This visual representation can significantly aid in understanding themes, character developments, or critical events.
The Little Prince Story Summary : A mind map illustrating the story's theme, characteristics of the little prince, and his travel experiences.
Skyfall 007 Story Summary : A production-focused diagram categorizing every element and deliverable for the movie.
Sleeping Beauty Story Summary : A diagram highlighting key events of the princess's story, with each event labeled and color-coded for clarity.
Present the author’s points in a straightforward structure , starting with the thesis or main idea, followed by supporting points. This logical progression aids in reader comprehension.
The summary overview structure should be clear and distinct , employing bullet points or headings to group similar information, enhancing readability.
Aim for comprehensiveness and conciseness ; distill complex information into its essence while maintaining clarity and brevity.

By adhering to these guidelines, the summary design and structure will not only accurately reflect the original text but also provide a clear, concise, and engaging overview for the reader. Visual aids, when appropriate, can further enhance understanding, making the summary more accessible and informative.

Step-by-Step Process for Crafting a Summary

To craft a concise and informative summary, especially of a research paper, the following step-by-step process is essential. This structured approach ensures clarity, accuracy, and relevance, aligning with the objective of summarizing:

Read the Entire Paper : Focus on understanding the main points, findings, and the authors' conclusions. Pay special attention to the introduction, results, and discussion sections to grasp the study's significance and potential usefulness.
Abstract and Conclusion : Use these sections to build a foundational understanding of the research paper's goals and outcomes. Write a simplified version of both, highlighting the key points and findings.
Methods Section : Review this part only if it's necessary to comprehend the data interpretation, ensuring a complete understanding of the research conducted.
Sectional Analysis : Divide the text into sections to better understand its structure and main arguments, which are crucial for a comprehensive summary.
Key Point Extraction : Make a list of the most important points, distinguishing between main ideas and supporting details. Assign a keyword to each identified point to organize and streamline the summary writing process.
Writing in Your Own Words : Using your own words, present the material from the author's perspective, ensuring an objective representation of the original text. Begin with an introduction that includes the text's title, author, and main point.
Accuracy and Completeness Check : Compare the summary against the original article to ensure all critical information is accurately and fully represented. This step is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the original work.
Revision and Editing : Revise the summary for clarity, coherence, and conciseness. This includes checking for grammatical and spelling errors, verifying the summary's length, and potentially having someone else review the work. Additionally, ensure proper citation methods are used to avoid plagiarism.

By following these steps, the summary writing process becomes a methodical exercise in distilling complex information into a digestible format. This approach not only aids in understanding but also in effectively communicating the essence of the original work to the intended audience.

Examples of Summary Usage

To illustrate the concepts discussed, examples of both full and concise article summaries are provided:

Macbeth : A comprehensive summary of Shakespeare's "Macbeth" would encapsulate the tragic downfall of Macbeth from a noble thane to a tyrannical ruler, driven by prophesies and manipulation. It would detail key events, such as the prophecy of the witches, the murder of King Duncan, and Macbeth's eventual demise, highlighting themes of ambition, guilt, and fate.
The Lottery Rose : This summary would outline the story of a young boy, abused and neglected, who finds solace and hope through a small rose bush he wins at a supermarket lottery. It would touch upon themes of abuse, redemption, and the power of kindness.
My Sister's Keeper : A brief summary might focus on the central ethical dilemma of a girl conceived to save her sister's life, exploring themes of medical ethics, family dynamics, and personal autonomy.

In professional contexts, summaries provide clear overviews of meetings, judicial decisions, and project progress:

Meeting Summary : Offers a clear overview of decisions made, ensuring all participants, including absentees, are informed of the outcomes and action items.
Judicial Summary : An example includes the judge exercising summary jurisdiction to swiftly resolve a dispute, demonstrating the use of summaries in legal settings for efficiency.
Project Progress Summary : For instance, a summary detailing the progress in building a bridge would provide stakeholders with a quick, comprehensive update on milestones achieved and challenges faced.

Finally, summaries also play a pivotal role in advocating for systemic changes or summarizing large-scale projects or reports:

Advocacy for Public Healthcare System : A concise statement summarizing the need for a better public healthcare system can effectively communicate the core argument to a broad audience.
Chapter/Plot Summary : Essential in academic settings, these summaries help students and researchers quickly grasp the main points and themes of a specific chapter or the overall plot of a book.

Common Challenges in Summary Writing

In the process of summary writing, several common pitfalls can significantly affect the clarity, accuracy, and effectiveness of the final product. Recognizing and avoiding these pitfalls is crucial for crafting a concise and informative summary.

Including irrelevant information can distract from the main ideas, making the summary less effective.
Writing a summary that is too long or too short disrupts the balance between comprehensiveness and conciseness, leading to an ineffective summary.
Being too generic limits the summary's relevance, while being overly specific can reduce its broader applicability.
Failing to convey the original text's tone and purpose can lead to misinterpretation, affecting the summary's accuracy.
Being too passive or boastful can undermine the summary's credibility, while being too boring or flashy can impact its engagement level.
A summary that is overly personal or impersonal may struggle with relatability, affecting its impact on the reader.
Not capturing the main ideas or focusing excessively on plot details can result in a summary with limited depth and analysis.
The lack of textual evidence to support arguments weakens the summary's analysis and credibility.
Overreliance on secondary sources can diminish the summary's originality and analytical depth.
Ignoring the historical or cultural context of a work can restrict its interpretation and understanding.
Restating information instead of summarizing leads to redundancy and a lack of clarity.
Failing to proofread can lead to errors in spelling, grammar, and clarity, diminishing the summary's quality.
Using overly complex language makes the summary difficult to understand and interpret.

What is a summary and could you provide an example?

A summary is a concise recapitulation of the primary points, typically serving as a conclusion to a piece of work. For instance, a chapter summary would distill the essential arguments and conclusions. Meanwhile, a brief is a comprehensive framework, with main points and subpoints, for a discourse that is often legal in nature, such as a brief prepared for a legal argument.

What are the different types of summaries that exist?

There are several main types of summaries, including:

Educational Summary
Professional Summary
Consumer Oriented Summary
Thematic Summary
Critical Summary
Descriptive Summary
Synoptic Summary (or Synthesis)

Could you explain how to craft a thorough summary?

To write a detailed summary, you should:

Immediately report the overall topic.
Start with the title of the essay and the author's name.
Use the present tense.
Outline the primary points addressed in the text.
If necessary, include relevant supporting details based on the desired length and depth of the summary.
Note any significant conclusions that have been drawn.

What is the proper format for writing a summary?

When writing a summary, you should adhere to the following guidelines:

Write the summary in your own words.
Ensure the summary only reflects the ideas from the original text.
Avoid including your personal opinions, interpretations, deductions, or comments.
Identify the author's significant sub-claims in the order they use to support the main point.

Sign up for more like this.

Affiliate 💸

Get started free

Literature Review

12 Best Tools For Perfect Research Summary Writing

Discover the 12 best tools to streamline your research summary writing, ensuring clarity and precision every time.

Aug 29, 2024

person making new notes - Research Summary

Consider you finally find the time to tackle that research paper for your class. You pull up your literature search and see dozens of articles and studies staring back at you. As you scroll through the titles and abstracts, you realize you need to figure out how to summarize the research to get started on your paper.

Writing a practical research summary can feel daunting, but it doesn’t have to. In this guide, we’ll break down what a research summary is, why it’s essential, and how to write one. This information lets you confidently write your research summary and finish your paper.

Otio’s AI research and writing partner can help you write efficient research summaries and papers. Our tool can summarize academic articles so you can understand the material and finish your writing.

What is a research summary, purpose of a research summary, how do you write a research summary in 10 simple steps, what is a phd research summary, examples of research summary, supercharge your researching ability with otio — try otio for free today.

man with notes infront of him - 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 study overview with critical findings. A research summary generally contains the structure of the article.

You must know the goal of your analysis before you launch a project. A research overview summarizes the detailed response and highlights particular issues. Writing it may be troublesome. You want to start with a structure in mind to write a good overview.

1. Read The Entire Research Paper

Before writing a research summary , you must read and understand the entire research paper. This may seem like a time-consuming task, but it is essential to write a good summary. Make sure you know the paper's main points before you begin writing.

2. Take Notes As You Read

As you read, take notes on the main points of the paper. These notes will come in handy when you are writing your summary. Be sure to note any necessary information, such as the main conclusions of the author's writing. This helpful tip will also help you write a practical blog summary in less time.

3. Organize Your Thoughts

Once you have finished reading and taking notes on the paper, it is time to start writing your summary. Before you begin, take a few minutes to organize your thoughts. Write down the main points that you want to include in your summary. Then, arrange these points in a logical order.

4. Write The Summary

Now that you have organized your thoughts, it is time to start writing the summary. Begin by stating the author’s thesis statement or main conclusion. Then, briefly describe each of the main points from the paper. Be sure to write clearly and concisely. When you finish, reread your summary to ensure it accurately reflects the paper's content.

5. Write The Introduction

After you have written the summary, it is time to write the introduction. The introduction should include an overview of the paper and a summary description. It should also state the main idea.

6. Introduce The Report's Purpose

The summary of a research paper should include a brief description of the paper's purpose. It should state the paper's thesis statement and briefly describe each of the main points of the paper.

7. Use Keywords To Introduce The Report

When introducing the summary of a research paper, use keywords familiar to the reader. This will help them understand the summary and why it is essential.

8. State The Author's Conclusions

The summary of a research paper should include a brief statement of the author's conclusions. This will help your teacher understand what the paper is trying to achieve.

9. Keep It Concise

A summary should be concise and to the point. It should not include any new information or arguments. It should be one paragraph long at maximum.

10. Edit And Proofread

After you have written the summary, edit and proofread it to ensure it is accurate and precise. This will help ensure that your summary is effective and free of any grammar or spelling errors.

person using top tools - Research Summary

1. Otio: Your AI Research Assistant

Knowledge workers, researchers, and students today need help with content overload and are left to deal with it using fragmented, complex, and manual tooling. Too many settle for stitching together complicated bookmarking, read-it-later, and note-taking apps to get through their workflows. Now that anyone can create content with a button, this problem will only worsen. Otio solves this problem by providing researchers with one AI-native workspace. It helps them:

1. Collect a wide range of data sources, from bookmarks, tweets, and extensive books to YouTube videos.

2. extract key takeaways with detailed ai-generated notes and source-grounded q&a chat. , 3. create draft outputs using the sources you’ve collected. .

Otio helps you to go from a reading list to the first draft faster. Along with this, Otio also enables you to write research papers/essays faster. Here are our top features that researchers love: AI-generated notes on all bookmarks (Youtube videos, PDFs, articles, etc.), Otio enables you to chat with individual links or entire knowledge bases, just like you chat with ChatGPT, as well as AI-assisted writing.

Let Otio be your AI research and writing partner — try Otio for free today !

2. Hypotenuse AI: The Versatile Summarizer

Like all the AI text summarizers on this list, Hypotenuse AI can take the input text and generate a short summary. One area where it stands out is its ability to handle various input options: You can simply copy-paste the text, directly upload a PDF, or even drop a YouTube link to create summaries.

You can summarize nearly 200,000 characters (or 50,000 words) at once.

Hypotenuse AI summarizes articles, PDFs, paragraphs, documents, and videos.

With the AI tool, you can create engaging hooks and repurpose content for social media.

You'll need a paid plan after the 7-day free trial.

There needs to be a free plan available.

The AI tool majorly focuses on generating eCommerce and marketing content.

3. Scalenut: The Beginner-Friendly AI Summarizer

Scalenut is one of the powerful AI text summarizers for beginners or anyone starting out. While it's not as polished as some other business-focused apps, it's significantly easier to use — and the output is just as good as others. If you want a basic online text summarizer that lets you summarize the notes within 800 characters (not words), Scalenut is your app.

With Scalenut, you get a dedicated summary generation tool for more granular control.

The keyword planner available helps build content directly from the short and sweet summaries.

The AI tool integrates well with a whole suite of SEO tools, making it a more SEO-focused summarizer.

You only get to generate one summary per day.

Scalenut's paid plans are expensive compared to other AI tools.

You must summarize long-form articles or blogs at most the limit of 800 characters.

4. SciSummary: The Academic AI Summarizer

SciSummary is an AI summarizer that helps summarize single or multiple research papers. It combines and compares the content summaries from research papers, article links, etc.

It can save time and effort for scientists, students, and enthusiasts who want to keep up with the latest scientific developments.

It can provide accurate and digestible summaries powered by advanced AI models that learn from feedback and expert guidance.

It can help users read between the lines and understand complex scientific texts' main points and implications.

It may only capture some nuances and details of the original articles or papers, which may be necessary for some purposes or audiences.

Some types of scientific texts, such as highly technical, specialized, or interdisciplinary, may require more domain knowledge or context.

Some sources of scientific information, such as websites, videos, or podcasts not in text format, may need help summarizing.

5. Quillbot: The AI Summarizer for Academic Papers

QuillBot uses advanced neural network models to summarize research papers accurately and effectively. The tool leverages cutting-edge technology to condense lengthy papers into concise and informative summaries, making it easier for users to navigate vast amounts of literature.

You can upload the text for summarization directly from a document.

It's excellent for summarizing essays, papers, and lengthy documents.

You can summarize long texts up to 1200 words for free.

The free plan is limited to professionals.

There could have been some more output types.

QuillBot's Premium plan only gives you 6000 words for summaries per month.

6. Scribbr: The Research Paper Assistant

Scribbr is an AI-driven academic writing assistant with a summarization feature tailored for research papers. The tool assists users in the research paper writing process by summarizing and condensing information from various sources, offering support in structuring and organizing content effectively.

7. TLDR This: The Online Article Summarizer

TLDR This uses advanced AI to effectively filter out unimportant arguments from online articles and provide readers only with vital takeaways. Its streamlined interface eliminates ads and distractions while summarizing key points, metadata, images, and other crucial article details.

TLDR This condenses even very lengthy materials into compact summaries users can quickly consume, making it easier to process a vast range of internet content efficiently.

Ten free "AI" summaries

Summarization of long text

Basic summary extraction

Premium option cost

No significant improvement in premium options

8. AI Summarizer: The Text Document Summarizer

AI Summarizer harnesses artificial intelligence to summarize research papers and other text documents automatically. The tool streamlines the summarization process, making it efficient and accurate, enabling users to extract essential information from extensive research papers efficiently.

Easy-to-understand interface

1500-word limit

Multiple language support

Contains advertisements

Requires security captcha completion

Struggles with lengthy content summarization

9. Jasper: The Advanced Summarizer

Jasper AI is a robust summarizing tool that helps users generate AI-powered paper summaries quickly and effectively. The tool supports the prompt creation of premium-quality summaries, assisting researchers in distilling complex information into concise and informative outputs.

Jasper offers some advanced features, like generating a text from scratch and even summarizing it.

It integrates well with third-party apps like Surfer, Grammarly, and its own AI art generator.

It's versatile and can be used to create summaries of blogs, articles, website copy, emails, and even social media posts.

There's no free plan available — though you get a 7-day free trial.

You'll need to have a flexible budget to use Jasper AI.

The Jasper app has a steep learning curve.

10. Resoomer: The Summary Extractor

Resoomer rapidly analyzes textual documents to determine the essential sentences and summarizes these key points using its proprietary semantic analysis algorithm.

By automatically identifying what information matters most, Resoomer can condense elaborate texts across diverse subjects into brief overviews of their core message. With swift copy-and-paste functionality requiring no signup, this specialized tool simplifies the reading experience by extracting only vital details from complex writings.

Clear and accurate summaries

Creative sentence combining

Variety of modes and options

Lengthy text summarization without word limit in premium mode

Confusing interface with irrelevant features

Long-winded summaries spread across multiple pages

11. Anyword: The Marketing-Focused Summarizer

When I saw Anyword's summary, I could easily state that the content was unique and worth sharing, making this AI tool an excellent choice for marketers. Plus, it's very easy to use.

Once you've copied-pasted the text and chosen a summary type, paragraph, keywords, or TL;DR, it generates a summary in minutes. Approve it; you can share the text directly without worrying about plagiarized content.

You can test the AI tool with the 7-day free trial.

The Anyword's text generator and summarizer are perfect for creating long-form pieces like blog posts with snippets.

You can give detailed prompts to the AI tool to customize the generated text.

Any word is expensive for a more limited set of features than other AI summarizers.

It can sometimes be slower to use.

There is no free Anyword plan available.

12. Frase: The SEO Summarizer

Frase is a powerful AI-powered summarizer that focuses on SEO. This means it can generate summaries that attract audiences and rank higher. Its proprietary model stands out, providing more flexibility, competitive pricing, and custom features.

Frase uses BLUF and Reverse Pyramid techniques to generate summaries, improving ranking chances.

It's free to use Frase's summary generator.

Instead of GPT-3.5 or GPT-4, Frase uses its proprietary model.

There's no way to add links to the blog or article to generate a summary.

You can input up to 600-700 words for summarization.

It might not be an ideal article summarizer for those who don't care about SEO.

A research summary for a PhD is called a research statement . The research statement (or statement of research interests) is included in academic job applications. It summarizes your research accomplishments, current work, and future direction and potential. The statement can discuss specific issues such as funding history and potential requirements for laboratory equipment and space and other resources, possible research and industrial collaborations, and how your research contributes to your field's future research direction.

The research statement should be technical but intelligible to all department members, including those outside your subdiscipline. So keep the “big picture” in mind. The strongest research statements present a readable, compelling, and realistic research agenda that fits well with the department's needs, facilities, and goals. Research statements can be weakened by: overly ambitious proposals lack of apparent direction lack of big-picture focus, and inadequate attention to the needs and facilities of the department or position.

• Literature Search Template • ChatGPT Prompts For Research • How To Find Gaps In Research • Research Journal Example • How To Find Limitations Of A Study • How To Do A Literature Search • Research Concept Map • Meta-Analysis Methods • How To Identify Bias In A Source • Search Strategies For Research • Literature Search Template • How To Read A Research Paper Quickly • How To Evaluate An Article • ChatGPT Summarize Paper • How To Take Notes For A Research Paper

Research Summary Example 1: A Look at the Probability of an Unexpected Volcanic Eruption in Yellowstone

Introduction .

If the Yellowstone supervolcano erupted massively , the consequences would be catastrophic for the United States. The importance of analyzing the likelihood of such an eruption cannot be overstated.

Hypothesis

An eruption of the Yellowstone supervolcano would be preceded by intense precursory activity manifesting a few weeks up to a few years in advance.

Results

Statistical data from multiple volcanic eruptions happening worldwide show activity that preceded these events (in particular, how early each type of activity was detected).

Discussion and Conclusion

Given that scientists continuously monitor Yellowstone and that signs of an eruption are normally detected much in advance, at least a few days in advance, the hypothesis is confirmed. This could be applied to creating emergency plans detailing an organized evacuation campaign and other response measures.

Research Summary Example 2: The Frequency of Extreme Weather Events in the US from 2000-2008 as Compared to the ‘50s

Weather events bring immense material damage and cause human victims.

Extreme weather events are significantly more frequent nowadays than in the ‘50s.

Several categories of extreme events occur regularly now and then: droughts and associated fires, massive rainfall/snowfall and associated floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, Arctic cold waves, etc.

Discussion and Conclusion

Several extreme events have become significantly more frequent recently, confirming this hypothesis. This increasing frequency correlates reliably with rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere and growing temperatures worldwide.

In the absence of another recent significant global change that could explain a higher frequency of disasters, and knowing how growing temperature disturbs weather patterns, it is natural to assume that global warming (CO2) causes this increase in frequency. This, in turn, suggests that this increased frequency of disasters is not a short-term phenomenon but is here to stay until we address CO2 levels.

Researchers, students, and knowledge workers have long struggled with the initial stages of research projects. The early steps of gathering and organizing information , taking notes, and synthesizing the material into a coherent summary are vital for establishing a solid foundation for any research endeavor.

These steps can be tedious, overwhelming, and time-consuming. Otio streamlines this process so you can go from the reading list to the first draft faster. Along with this, Otio also helps you write research papers/essays faster. Here are our top features that researchers love:

AI-generated notes on all bookmarks (Youtube videos, PDFs, articles, etc.), Otio enables you to chat with individual links or entire knowledge bases, just like you chat with ChatGPT, as well as AI-assisted writing.

• Sharly AI Alternatives • AI For Summarizing Research Papers • Literature Review Tools • How To Identify Theoretical Framework In An Article • Graduate School Reading • Research Tools • AI For Academic Research • Research Paper Organizer • Best AI Tools For Research • Zotero Alternatives • Zotero Vs Endnote • ChatGPT For Research Papers • ChatGPT Literature Review • Mendeley Alternative • Unriddle AI Alternatives • Literature Matrix Generator • Research Assistant • Research Tools • Research Graphic Organizer • Good Websites for Research • Best AI for Research • Research Paper Graphic Organizer

person sitting alone and working - Can You Use "We" In A Research Paper

Sep 2, 2024

Pronouns In a Research Paper - Can You Use "We" In A Research Paper

Graph Drawn on Paper - Research Paper Graphic Organizer

Sep 1, 2024

What is a Research Paper Graphic Organizer, and How Can One Be Created?

Join over 50,000 researchers changing the way they read & write

Chrome Extension

Refund Policy

Join thousands of other scholars and researchers

Try Otio Free

USC Libraries
Research Guides

Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper

Executive Summary
Purpose of Guide
Design Flaws to Avoid
Independent and Dependent Variables
Glossary of Research Terms
Reading Research Effectively
Narrowing a Topic Idea
Broadening a Topic Idea
Extending the Timeliness of a Topic Idea
Academic Writing Style
Applying Critical Thinking
Choosing a Title
Making an Outline
Paragraph Development
Research Process Video Series
The C.A.R.S. Model
Background Information
The Research Problem/Question
Theoretical Framework
Citation Tracking
Content Alert Services
Evaluating Sources
Primary Sources
Secondary Sources
Tiertiary Sources
Scholarly vs. Popular Publications
Qualitative Methods
Quantitative Methods
Insiderness
Using Non-Textual Elements
Limitations of the Study
Common Grammar Mistakes
Writing Concisely
Avoiding Plagiarism
Footnotes or Endnotes?
Further Readings
Generative AI and Writing
USC Libraries Tutorials and Other Guides
Bibliography

An executive summary is a thorough overview of a research report or other type of document that synthesizes key points for its readers, saving them time and preparing them to understand the study's overall content. It is a separate, stand-alone document of sufficient detail and clarity to ensure that the reader can completely understand the contents of the main research study. An executive summary can be anywhere from 1-10 pages long depending on the length of the report, or it can be the summary of more than one document [e.g., papers submitted for a group project].

Bailey, Edward, P. The Plain English Approach to Business Writing . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 73-80 Todorovic, Zelimir William and Marietta Wolczacka Frye. “Writing Effective Executive Summaries: An Interdisciplinary Examination.” In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings . (Decatur, IL: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 2009): pp. 662-691.

Importance of a Good Executive Summary

Although an executive summary is similar to an abstract in that they both summarize the contents of a research study, there are several key differences. With research abstracts, the author's recommendations are rarely included, or if they are, they are implicit rather than explicit. Recommendations are generally not stated in academic abstracts because scholars operate in a discursive environment, where debates, discussions, and dialogs are meant to precede the implementation of any new research findings. The conceptual nature of much academic writing also means that recommendations arising from the findings are distributed widely and not easily or usefully encapsulated. Executive summaries are used mainly when a research study has been developed for an organizational partner, funding entity, or other external group that participated in the research . In such cases, the research report and executive summary are often written for policy makers outside of academe, while abstracts are written for the academic community. Professors, therefore, assign the writing of executive summaries so students can practice synthesizing and writing about the contents of comprehensive research studies for external stakeholder groups.

When preparing to write, keep in mind that:

An executive summary is not an abstract.
An executive summary is not an introduction.
An executive summary is not a preface.
An executive summary is not a random collection of highlights.

Christensen, Jay. Executive Summaries Complete The Report. California State University Northridge; Clayton, John. "Writing an Executive Summary that Means Business." Harvard Management Communication Letter (July 2003): 2-4; Keller, Chuck. "Stay Healthy with a Winning Executive Summary." Technical Communication 41 (1994): 511-517; Murphy, Herta A., Herbert W. Hildebrandt, and Jane P. Thomas. Effective Business Communications . New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997; Vassallo, Philip. "Executive Summaries: Where Less Really is More." ETC.: A Review of General Semantics 60 (Spring 2003): 83-90 .

Structure and Writing Style

Writing an Executive Summary

Read the Entire Document This may go without saying, but it is critically important that you read the entire research study thoroughly from start to finish before you begin to write the executive summary. Take notes as you go along, highlighting important statements of fact, key findings, and recommended courses of action. This will better prepare you for how to organize and summarize the study. Remember this is not a brief abstract of 300 words or less but, essentially, a mini-paper of your paper, with a focus on recommendations.

Isolate the Major Points Within the Original Document Choose which parts of the document are the most important to those who will read it. These points must be included within the executive summary in order to provide a thorough and complete explanation of what the document is trying to convey.

Separate the Main Sections Closely examine each section of the original document and discern the main differences in each. After you have a firm understanding about what each section offers in respect to the other sections, write a few sentences for each section describing the main ideas. Although the format may vary, the main sections of an executive summary likely will include the following:

An opening statement, with brief background information,
The purpose of research study,
Method of data gathering and analysis,
Overview of findings, and,
A description of each recommendation, accompanied by a justification. Note that the recommendations are sometimes quoted verbatim from the research study.

Combine the Information Use the information gathered to combine them into an executive summary that is no longer than 10% of the original document. Be concise! The purpose is to provide a brief explanation of the entire document with a focus on the recommendations that have emerged from your research. How you word this will likely differ depending on your audience and what they care about most. If necessary, selectively incorporate bullet points for emphasis and brevity. Re-read your Executive Summary After you've completed your executive summary, let it sit for a while before coming back to re-read it. Check to make sure that the summary will make sense as a separate document from the full research study. By taking some time before re-reading it, you allow yourself to see the summary with fresh, unbiased eyes.

Common Mistakes to Avoid

Length of the Executive Summary As a general rule, the correct length of an executive summary is that it meets the criteria of no more pages than 10% of the number of pages in the original document, with an upper limit of no more than ten pages [i.e., ten pages for a 100 page document]. This requirement keeps the document short enough to be read by your audience, but long enough to allow it to be a complete, stand-alone synopsis. Cutting and Pasting With the exception of specific recommendations made in the study, do not simply cut and paste whole sections of the original document into the executive summary. You should paraphrase information from the longer document. Avoid taking up space with excessive subtitles and lists, unless they are absolutely necessary for the reader to have a complete understanding of the original document. Consider the Audience Although unlikely to be required by your professor, there is the possibility that more than one executive summary will have to be written for a given document [e.g., one for policy-makers, one for private industry, one for philanthropists]. This may only necessitate the rewriting of the introduction and conclusion, but it could require rewriting the entire summary in order to fit the needs of the reader. If necessary, be sure to consider the types of audiences who may benefit from your study and make adjustments accordingly. Clarity in Writing One of the biggest mistakes you can make is related to the clarity of your executive summary. Always note that your audience [or audiences] are likely seeing your research study for the first time. The best way to avoid a disorganized or cluttered executive summary is to write it after the study is completed. Always follow the same strategies for proofreading that you would for any research paper. Use Strong and Positive Language Don’t weaken your executive summary with passive, imprecise language. The executive summary is a stand-alone document intended to convince the reader to make a decision concerning whether to implement the recommendations you make. Once convinced, it is assumed that the full document will provide the details needed to implement the recommendations. Although you should resist the temptation to pad your summary with pleas or biased statements, do pay particular attention to ensuring that a sense of urgency is created in the implications, recommendations, and conclusions presented in the executive summary. Be sure to target readers who are likely to implement the recommendations.

Bailey, Edward, P. The Plain English Approach to Business Writing . (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 73-80; Christensen, Jay. Executive Summaries Complete The Report. California State University Northridge; Executive Summaries. Writing@CSU. Colorado State University; Clayton, John. "Writing an Executive Summary That Means Business." Harvard Management Communication Letter , 2003; Executive Summary. University Writing Center. Texas A&M University; Green, Duncan. Writing an Executive Summary. Oxfam’s Research Guidelines series ; Guidelines for Writing an Executive Summary. Astia.org; Markowitz, Eric. How to Write an Executive Summary. Inc. Magazine, September, 15, 2010; Kawaski, Guy. The Art of the Executive Summary. "How to Change the World" blog; Keller, Chuck. "Stay Healthy with a Winning Executive Summary." Technical Communication 41 (1994): 511-517; The Report Abstract and Executive Summary. The Writing Lab and The OWL. Purdue University; Writing Executive Summaries. Effective Writing Center. University of Maryland; Kolin, Philip. Successful Writing at Work . 10th edition. (Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, 2013), p. 435-437; Moral, Mary. "Writing Recommendations and Executive Summaries." Keeping Good Companies 64 (June 2012): 274-278; Todorovic, Zelimir William and Marietta Wolczacka Frye. “Writing Effective Executive Summaries: An Interdisciplinary Examination.” In United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship. Conference Proceedings . (Decatur, IL: United States Association for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, 2009): pp. 662-691.

<< Previous: 3. The Abstract
Next: 4. The Introduction >>
Last Updated: Sep 3, 2024 1:54 PM
URL: https://libguides.usc.edu/writingguide

Unfortunately we don't fully support your browser. If you have the option to, please upgrade to a newer version or use Mozilla Firefox , Microsoft Edge , Google Chrome , or Safari 14 or newer. If you are unable to, and need support, please send us your feedback .

We'd appreciate your feedback. Tell us what you think! opens in new tab/window

In a nutshell: how to write a lay summary

November 26, 2018 | 5 min read

By Christopher Tancock

Why “translating” your research for a general audience can bring many benefits – and how to do so

With thanks to Kristina Killgrove

Elsevier Authors' Update is pleased to present this article in support of PHD2Published Academic Writing Month. opens in new tab/window

You must be rather pleased with that newly-published article. After many long months, your hard work has paid off and that paper has now taken its place in the library of academic literature. Unfortunately, so have another 2.5 million articles just this year. How do you stand out amongst that enormous crowd and get attention? One way of doing this is to make your article as accessible as possible and a good way of achieving that aim is to prepare a lay summary.

What is a lay summary?

Though your colleagues and peers are probably able to get to grips with your article, the chances are that its content will be unintelligible to the average man or woman in the street. What’s more, researchers are increasingly tasked by their institutions and funders to outline the impact of their research for the general public and beyond their specific area of interest. If you can transform your article into something that the wider public can understand, you’ve got yourself another readership - and one who is more likely to share what it is that you’ve discovered/hypothesized/confirmed further. The key to doing this is in producing a lay summary.

A lay summary, or impact statement, is a very efficient way of conveying the essence of your article briefly and clearly. Fundamentally, what you’re aiming to produce is a short paragraph outlining the article content, aimed at non-specialists in the field and written in a way that they can easily understand. This element differentiates it from the abstract, which is designed with your subject peers in mind. The structure of a lay summary should answer the main questions of “who/what/where/when/how many/why?” (in essence, you’re trying to justify why someone should spend time in reading what you’ve produced). Answering these questions in a concise manner will deliver all the details the reader needs. The most important part of it is a “summary within a summary”: one final sentence which explains why the research is important, and what the article has concluded.

What’s the big deal?

Lay summaries are already commonly used by researchers in many subject areas, as they encourage and increase the possibility of collaboration, and some funding bodies even require them as part of their application procedure. Writing such summaries – distilling your work into a “portable” and maximally-accessible form can bring many benefits for your wider interactions with society at large. Among other things, they’re great for use in press releases or when communicating with journalists. In short: this is a communications skill worth learning.

Here are some pointers on how to write a useful lay summary:

Predict and cover the “so what?” factor – justify your research.

Give some background and context to the research. What prompted you to do it?

Follow a logical order. This may not always coincide with a temporal order.

Explain the impact of the work – what is going to change (especially in relation to wider society)?

Use succinct, short sentences – and write in plain English. Imagine you’re talking to an undergraduate who’s just stepped into your introductory class. Or, better still, pretend you’re trying to explain your article to a distant family member who works in retail/fashion/hospitality.

Avoid jargon unless absolutely necessary and explain it if you do have to keep it in.

Use first person and active voice (“we agreed” rather than “it was agreed”).

Use positives not negative sentences: “You will have repeat appointments at least once a fortnight”, rather than “The usual practice is not to schedule repeat appointments more frequently than once a fortnight”

Images are very important – try to include one if you can.

When you think you’re ready with your summary, ask a friendly non-academic to read it. Ask them if they understood it: the number of questions you get might dictate that further revision is needed!

Supporting lay summaries at Elsevier

Here at Elsevier we’ve been exploring how we can support authors with writing, hosting and promoting lay summaries. Several of the journals we publish including: Epilepsy & Behavior Case Reports opens in new tab/window , International Journal of Paleopathology , Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports opens in new tab/window and Journal of Hepatology opens in new tab/window now provide lay summaries for selected papers on their homepages. These are made freely available to readers. Note that different journals and subject areas might approach the same basic idea in various ways. For example, the Materials Today group of journals has recently launched its “Contributor” project whereby early and mid-career researchers are encouraged to write “news summaries” of recent articles (which are then checked with the original author(s) for accuracy and published on the Materials Today news page opens in new tab/window ). There might be similar initiatives in your community, so make sure you keep your ear to the ground and get involved if you can.

Looking to the future, we’re also in the process of experimenting with facilitating the submission of lay summaries during the submission process – and aggregating them on a grander scale for authors to aid their discoverability. Stay tuned to hear more on our efforts in this regard.

Lay summaries can be a powerful tool to extend and broaden the impact of your research. Don’t forget that there are a number of other tools available to you as author – check out our guide to “getting noticed” opens in new tab/window , for example. Have a go at writing a summary for your next article and ask your editor if the journal in question is interested in participating in the lay summaries project. Enjoy making a splash with your next article!

Contributor

Christopher Tancock

Authors' update - keeping journal authors in touch with industry developments, support and training.

Extract key information from research papers with our AI summarizer.

Get a snapshot of what matters – fast . Break down complex concepts into easy-to-read sections. Skim or dive deep with a clean reading experience.

Summarize, analyze, and organize your research in one place.

Features built for scholars like you, trusted by researchers and students around the world.

Summarize papers, PDFs, book chapters, online articles and more.

Easy import

Drag and drop files, enter the url of a page, paste a block of text, or use our browser extension.

Enhanced summary

Change the summary to suit your reading style. Choose from a bulleted list, one-liner and more.

Read the key points of a paper in seconds with confidence that everything you read comes from the original text.

Clean reading

Clutter free flashcards help you skim or diver deeper into the details and quickly jump between sections.

Highlighted key terms and findings. Let evidence-based statements guide you through the full text with confidence.

Summarize texts in any format

Scholarcy’s ai summarization tool is designed to generate accurate, reliable article summaries..

Our summarizer tool is trained to identify key terms, claims, and findings in academic papers. These insights are turned into digestible Summary Flashcards.

Scroll in the box below to see the magic ⤸

The knowledge extraction and summarization methods we use focus on accuracy. This ensures what you read is factually correct, and can always be traced back to the original source .

What students say

It would normally take me 15mins – 1 hour to skim read the article but with Scholarcy I can do that in 5 minutes.

Scholarcy makes my life easier because it pulls out important information in the summary flashcard.

Scholarcy is clear and easy to navigate. It helps speed up the process of reading and understating papers.

Join over 400,000 people already saving time.

From a to z with scholarcy, generate flashcard summaries. discover more aha moments. get to point quicker..

Understand complex research. Jump between key concepts and sections. Highlight text. Take notes.

Build a library of knowledge. Recall important info with ease. Organize, search, sort, edit.

Bring it all together. Export Flashcards in a range of formats. Transfer Flashcards into other apps.

Apply what you’ve learned. Compile your highlights, notes, references. Write that magnum opus 🤌

Go beyond summaries

Get unlimited summaries, advanced research and analysis features, and your own personalised collection with Scholarcy Library!

With Scholarcy Library you can import unlimited documents and generate summaries for all your course materials or collection of research papers.

Scholarcy Library offers additional features including access to millions of academic research papers, customizable summaries, direct import from Zotero and more.

Scholarcy lets you build and organise your summaries into a handy library that you can access from anywhere. Export from a range of options, including one-click bibliographies and even a literature matrix.

Compare plans

Summarize 3 articles a day with our free summarizer tool, or upgrade to Scholarcy Library to generate and save unlimited article summaries.

Import a range of file formats

Export flashcards (one at a time)

Everything in Free

Unlimited summarization

Generate enhanced summaries

Save your flashcards

Take notes, highlight and edit text

Organize flashcards into collections

Frequently Asked Questions

How do i use scholarcy, what if i’m having issues importing files, can scholarcy generate a plain language summary of the article, can scholarcy process any size document, how do i change the summary to get better results, what if i upload a paywalled article to scholarcy, is it violating copyright laws.

Uncategorized

How to Summarize A Research Paper Using AI: Easy Academic Mastery

Editorial staff.

September 2, 2024

Summarizing a research paper using AI can help researchers and students save time and increase their understanding of complex topics. AI tools can quickly generate concise and accurate summaries highlighting the most important aspects of academic papers.

With their advanced algorithms and user-friendly interfaces, these tools can get you the most relevant insights with minimal effort.

To Summarize a research paper using AI:

Simply create a free account in TubeOnAI and log in.
Click the ‘New Summary’ Option at the top right corner of the interface.
Prepare your file in a supported format (eg; Doc, PDF, Text File).
Paste the publicly accessible link of the file into the search box.
Press ‘Summarize’ to get the output you need.

To know details about each of these steps, continue reading the article. I will share all the strategies to summarize research papers using AI so that you can save time and boost your productivity.

Which AI Is the Best Tool for Summarizing Research Papers?

When it comes to summarizing complex content, choosing the right AI tool can make all the difference. TubeOnAI stands out for its versatility and ability to handle multiple formats, but how does it compare with other popular tools like Otio, QuillBot, Scribbr, AI Summarizer, and TLDR?

Each of these tools offers unique features tailored to different needs, whether you’re a researcher, student, or professional. Below, I discuss the key differences and similarities between these tools, helping you make an informed decision based on your specific requirements.


Summarizes various content formats (Google Docs, PDFs, videos)	AI workspace for research and writing	Summarizes research papers and articles	Automated summarization of research papers
Google Docs, PDFs, videos	Wide range including bookmarks, tweets, and YouTube videos	Primarily text-based content	Text-based research papers and academic content
Wide range, including bookmarks, tweets, and YouTube videos	AI-generated notes, source-grounded Q&A chat, AI-assisted writing	Neural network models for precision and efficiency	Supports structuring and organizing research content
User-friendly, straightforward interface	Section-by-section summaries support large files, handles various formats	Designed for academic users, it may require some learning	Comprehensive may have a learning curve
High accuracy with detailed summaries	Accurate, detailed AI-generated notes	High accuracy, effective for complex content	Tailored for academic precision
Offers detailed, customizable summaries	Highly customizable, supports deep research	Limited customization	Offers support in structuring content
Users need concise, accurate summaries quickly	Researchers, academics dealing with content overload	Simple, focus on efficiency	Academic researchers and writers

So, Which AI Tool Should I Choose to Summarize Research Papers?

TubeOnAI is the best AI summarizing tool for summarizing various types of content, including research papers . It supports summarizing PDFs, Google Docs, and other file types, making it versatile for academic and professional use.

While several tools offer impressive capabilities, TubeOnAI stands out as the best choice due to its unique advantages. Here’s why TubeOnAI is the superior option:

1. Versatility Across Multiple Formats: Unlike other tools that primarily focus on text-based content, TubeOnAI can handle a variety of formats including Google Docs, PDFs, and even videos.

This versatility makes it an all-in-one solution for summarizing research papers and other complex documents, ensuring that you can use it across different types of content without switching tools.

2. Section-by-Section Summaries: TubeOnAI excels in providing detailed, section-by-section breakdowns of your documents, a feature that is particularly beneficial for lengthy and complex research papers.

While tools like TLDR offer quick overviews, they lack the depth that TubeOnAI provides, making it easier for users to focus on the most important sections of their work.

3. User-Friendly Interface: TubeOnAI’s interface is designed with ease of use in mind, allowing both beginners and advanced users to navigate and operate the tool effortlessly.

While other tools may offer a comprehensive suite of features, they often come with a steeper learning curve, which can slow down your workflow. TubeOnAI strikes the perfect balance between functionality and usability.

4. Accuracy and Customization: While many AI summarization tools are accurate, TubeOnAI goes a step further by allowing users to customize their summaries to focus on specific details or sections.

This level of control ensures that the summaries generated are not only precise but also tailored to your exact needs, something that tools like AI Summarizer or TLDR might not offer.

5. Handling Large Files with Ease: One of the challenges researchers often face is dealing with large, complex documents. TubeOnAI is built to handle these with ease, breaking them down into manageable sections without losing any critical information.

This capability sets it apart from other tools, which may struggle with processing large files or might oversimplify the content.

6. Comprehensive Solutions for Professionals and Students: TubeOnAI’s ability to support diverse content formats, deliver in-depth summaries, and maintain a user-friendly experience makes it the best tool for both professionals and students.

Whether you’re working on a detailed research paper, summarizing multiple articles, or extracting key points from a long video lecture, TubeOnAI provides everything you need in one package.

Also Read : Best Podcast Summary Generator

Summarize A Research Paper Using TubeOnAI: Step-by-Step

TubeOnAI is the best research paper summarizer tool that can simplify the summarizing process, turning the task into something quick and efficient.

Whether you’re preparing for a presentation or keeping up with the latest findings, this guide shows you how AI can help distill complex information into digestible insights.

Here’s how to use AI to summarize a research paper step by step.

Step 1: Prepare the Research Paper and Login

Before you start summarizing, ensure that the research paper is available in a compatible format. TubeOnAI supports various file types, including PDFs, Google Docs, and text files.

Then log in to TubeOnAI. If you don’t have an account, please sign up. It’ll be a pretty easy process and you can sign it up with Gmail, or any social media account.

Step 2: Ensure Accessibility

For TubeOnAI to summarize the paper, it must be publicly accessible if it’s stored online. If you are using a Google Doc or a PDF hosted on Google Drive, make sure to set the sharing settings to “Anyone with the link can view.” This is crucial for the AI tool to access the content and generate a summary.

Step 3: Input the Document Link

Log in to your TubeOnAI account and navigate to the “New Summary” option. Paste the public link of your research paper into the input field. TubeOnAI accepts direct links to documents and files, ensuring that the URL ends with the appropriate file extension (e.g., .pdf, .docx).

Step 4: Generate the Summary

After setting up the document link and any custom preferences, click on the “Summarize” button. TubeOnAI will process the document and generate a summary within seconds. The summary will highlight key points, main arguments, and important findings from the research paper.

Step 5: Review and Refine

Once the summary is generated, review it to ensure that it captures the essence of the research paper accurately. You may need to refine or adjust the summary based on your specific needs or the depth of detail required.

Also Read : Summarize Google Docs with AI

Who Can be Benefited from Summarizing Research Paper

Summarizing research papers is helpful for many people, especially those who need to quickly understand complex information. It allows students, researchers, and professionals to grasp the key points of a study without reading the entire paper.

1. Students and Academics: Students and scholars can save time by quickly grasping the key points of complex studies. This allows them to focus on critical analysis and further research rather than getting bogged down in lengthy texts.

2. Researchers: Researchers often need to review numerous papers to stay updated in their field. Summaries help them efficiently scan through relevant literature to identify the most pertinent studies for their work.

3. Professionals: Professionals in fields like medicine, engineering, and technology use research to inform their practice. Summaries provide them with the necessary insights without requiring them to read through full papers.

4. Journalists and Writers: Those in media and publishing can use summaries to quickly understand scientific findings and convey them to a broader audience, making complex topics more accessible.

5. Policy Makers: Summaries allow policy makers to make informed decisions by distilling research findings into actionable insights, enabling them to apply evidence-based knowledge to real-world issues.

Frequently Asked Questions

How fast can i expect tubeonai to summarize a research paper.

TubeOnAI is designed for efficiency and typically summarizes research papers in seconds. However, the processing speed may vary depending on the file size and complexity of the document.

What makes TubeOnAI different from other AI summarization tools?

TubeOnAI stands out due to its precise and detailed section-wise summaries, its ability to interact with your content through follow-up questions, and its user-friendly interface. It saves time by delivering highly accurate summaries and allows for customizable outputs.

Is TubeOnAI suitable for summarizing lengthy research papers?

Yes, TubeOnAI is ideal for summarizing lengthy research papers. It breaks down complex information into easily digestible sections, ensuring you capture the key points without having to read through the entire document

Now that you know how to summarize a research paper using AI, I hope you realize that using TubeOnAI to summarize research papers can significantly enhance your productivity. TubeOnAI creates quick, accurate summaries of complex academic content and lets you focus on important research aspects without manually reading long documents.

If you still haven’t made up your mind, give TubeOnAI a try and see the difference. For any requirements, we’re always here to help you.

10 Best Chrome Extensions for Productivity in 2024

TubeOnAI: The Ultimate YouTube & Podcast Summarizer

About tubeonai.

The all-in-one AI summarizer to revolutionize the way you consume content. Summarize videos, podcasts, pdfs, web articles, and more to learn insights quickly and maximize your daily productivity.

Free AI Tools

YouTube to Blog Post
Podcast Summary
Linkedin Content
Email Newsletter
YouTube Video Script
Podcast Script
Help Center
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Terms of service
Become an Affiliate
Researchers
Content Creators
Crypto Marketers

Open access
Published: 02 September 2024

Benefits, barriers and recommendations for youth engagement in health research: combining evidence-based and youth perspectives

Katherine Bailey 1 , 2 na1 ,
Brooke Allemang 3 na1 ,
Ashley Vandermorris 4 , 5 ,
Sarah Munce 6 , 7 , 8 ,
Kristin Cleverley 1 , 9 , 10 ,
Cassandra Chisholm 11 ,
Eva Cohen 12 ,
Cedar Davidson 13 ,
Asil El Galad 14 ,
Dahlia Leibovich 15 ,
Trinity Lowthian 16 ,
Jeanna Pillainayagam 17 ,
Harshini Ramesh 18 ,
Anna Samson 19 ,
Vjura Senthilnathan 6 , 7 ,
Paul Siska 18 ,
Madison Snider 18 &
Alene Toulany 2 , 4 , 5

Research Involvement and Engagement volume 10 , Article number: 92 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Youth engagement refers to the collaboration between researchers and youth to produce research. Youth engagement in health research has been shown to inform effective interventions aimed at improving health outcomes. However, limited evidence has identified promising practices to meaningfully engage youth. This synthesis aims to describe youth engagement approaches, frameworks, and barriers, as well as provide both evidence-based and youth-generated recommendations for meaningful engagement.

This review occurred in two stages: 1) a narrative review of existing literature on youth engagement and 2) a Youth Advisory Council (YAC) to review and supplement findings with their perspectives, experiences, and recommendations. The terms ‘youth engagement’ and ‘health research’ were searched in Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycINFO. Articles and non-peer reviewed research works related to youth engagement in health research were included, reviewed, and summarized. The YAC met with research team members and in separate youth-only forums to complement the narrative review with their perspectives. Types of youth engagement include participation as research participants, advisors, partners, and co-investigators. Barriers to youth engagement were organized into youth- (e.g., time commitments), researcher- (e.g., attitudes towards youth engagement), organizational- (e.g., inadequate infrastructure to support youth engagement), and system-level (e.g., systemic discrimination and exclusion from research). To enhance youth engagement, recommendations focus on preparing and supporting youth by offering flexible communication approaches, mentorship opportunities, diverse and inclusive recruitment, and ensuring youth understand the commitment and benefits involved.

Conclusions

To harness the potential of youth engagement, researchers need to establish an inclusive and enabling environment that fosters collaboration, trust, and valuable contributions from youth. Future research endeavors should prioritize investigating the dynamics of power-sharing between researchers and youth, assessing the impact of youth engagement on young participants, and youth-specific evaluation frameworks.

Plain English summary

Engaging and partnering with youth in research related to healthcare is important, but often not done well. As researchers, we recognize that youth perspectives are needed to make sure we are asking the right questions, using appropriate research methods, and interpreting the results correctly. We searched the literature to identify challenges researchers have faced engaging youth in health research, as well as strategies to partner with youth in a meaningful way. We worked closely with 11 youth from across Canada with experience in healthcare, who formed a Youth Advisory Council. The youth advisors reviewed the literature we found and discussed how it fit with their own experiences and perspectives through group meetings with the research team. Youth advisors divided into four groups to co-author parts of this paper, including identifying the importance, benefits, and challenges of engaging in research and providing reflections on their positive and negative previous experiences as youth advisors. This paper provides an overview of recommendations for researchers to engage with youth in a meaningful way, including how they communicate and meet with youth, recognize their contributions, and implement feedback to improve the experiences of youth partners.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Patient engagement in health research is essential to improving the relevance, processes, and impact of their findings [ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. Defined as the collaboration between researchers and those with lived experience in planning and conducting research, interpreting findings, and informing knowledge translation activities [ 1 ], patient engagement in research has been shown to produce and disseminate findings that are more applicable and comprehensible for patients, their families, and the greater community [ 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 ]. Youth engagement refers specifically to the involvement of youth populations in the research process, with youth often being defined as young people between the ages of 15 to 24 years old [ 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 ]. Youth, particularly those with chronic physical health (e.g., cystic fibrosis, congenital heart disease, diabetes), mental health (e.g., anxiety, depression), and neurodevelopmental conditions (e.g., cerebral palsy), face unique challenges in engaging with the healthcare system compared to adult populations. These include navigating healthcare transitions, developing relationships with multiple care providers, learning to advocate for themselves, and assuming greater responsibility for their healthcare as they grow and mature [ 12 , 13 ]. Existing research has shown that engaging youth in research leads to more effective and impactful interventions, policies, and healthcare services aimed at supporting health outcomes of young people, informed by the priorities and experiences of youth themselves [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Several nationally representative child health organizations and leaders have identified youth engagement as a priority area in youth health, highlighting the urgent imperative to include their voices in health research and public policy decisions [ 20 ]. Despite the evidence suggesting that youth are eager and capable of being engaged, there is limited evidence on the unique considerations needed to meaningfully involve youth in health research given their distinct developmental stage [ 8 , 10 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 ]. These considerations include an emphasis on peer connections, mentorship, flexibility given competing priorities, and the use of technology to allow for broad participation [ 30 , 31 ]. In collaboration with a Youth Advisory Council (YAC), this review aims to:

Outline key types of youth engagement identified in the literature (Aim 1);

Review existing youth engagement frameworks identified in the literature (Aim 2);

Explore barriers to youth engagement identified in the literature and from YAC member perspectives (Aim 3);

Summarize recommendations for engaging youth in research identified in the literature and from YAC member perspectives (Aim 4).

The YAC identified a secondary aim, which was to:

Describe the benefits and impact of youth engagement from YAC member perspectives (Aim 5).

This project was comprised of two phases. First, the research team conducted a narrative review of the literature. Next, a project-specific YAC was established to review the literature findings and integrate the essential insights and perspectives of youth into the project. The methods pertaining to each phase are elaborated upon below. Our Research Ethics Board did not require a formal review of this project as it did not involve research participants.

Phase 1: Narrative Review

A narrative review was conducted to explore existing research on engaging youth in health research. Narrative review methodology is often employed to broadly describe the current state of the literature and provide insights for future research [ 32 ]. This review method was chosen to establish a broad understanding of the youth engagement literature and provide recommendations for researchers seeking to gain an overview of strategies for meaningful engagement. Narrative reviews also provide flexibility in terms of methodology (often based on the subjectivity of the research team) [ 33 ] and are less formal than other types of knowledge syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews) [ 34 , 35 ]. This review methodology allowed the research team to prioritize and integrate the perspectives of youth into the synthesis of information. Aims 1 to 4 were addressed in Phase 1. Aim 5 was not initially identified as an objective by the research team, and was therefore not included in the review of the literature. Upon establishment of the YAC, youth advisors deemed personal reflections on the benefits and impact of youth engagement from their perspectives critical to the manuscript.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Articles included in this narrative review met the following primary inclusion criteria: 1) published in English language, 2) published prior to April 2023, 3) focused on youth engagement in health research, and 4) described key types of youth engagement strategies (Aim 1), youth engagement frameworks (Aim 2), barriers to youth engagement (Aim 3), or recommendations for youth engagement (Aim 4). For the purposes of this review, ‘youth’ was defined as individuals between the ages of 15 to 24 years old, which is consistent with the definition provided by the United Nations [ 11 ], and ‘youth engagement’ was defined as the involvement of young people within this age range in research processes. This population was chosen for the focus of this review as the needs of youth are often distinct from children and adults due to their unique developmental stage (e.g., navigating healthcare transitions, increasing autonomy, etc.) [ 12 , 13 ]. Articles from any geographic location were included. Grey literature, websites, and non-peer reviewed research works (e.g., conference abstracts, theses) were also included using the same criteria as above.

Search Strategy and Synthesis

The search terms ‘youth engagement’ and ‘health research’ were searched in Google Scholar, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and PsycInfo. Articles were hand-searched by members of the research team and selected according to the inclusion criteria above. Reference lists of relevant articles were also scanned. While other knowledge syntheses (e.g., systematic or scoping reviews) review all works identified by the literature search, narrative reviews do not aim to be inclusive of all literature available on a given topic [ 36 ]. As such, our review of the literature was concluded once we felt that sufficiency was achieved, which was characterized by reviewing works that yielded recurrent concepts. Additionally, the literature was reviewed iteratively following feedback from youth advisors who critically reviewed the narrative review manuscript. Some aspects of the manuscript were deemed critical to expand upon by youth advisors, and literature was reviewed again accordingly.

Relevant peer-reviewed and non-peer reviewed literature was organized and summarized descriptively according to study aims 1 to 4. Barriers to youth engagement were organized into individual-, organizational-, and systems-level. Recommendations for youth engagement were organized into common overarching themes.

Phase 2: Collaboration with Youth Advisory Council

The research team identified the criticality of collaborating with youth themselves in the review, formatting, and presentation of findings from the narrative review. As the review was being conducted and written, the research team began recruiting a group of youth advisors to contribute their perspectives, experiences, and recommendations for the manuscript. The development and procedural aspects of the YAC as they relate to the review are described below and in Fig. 1 . The operation of the YAC was guided by the McCain Model of Youth Engagement [ 31 ] and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research’s (CIHR) Patient Engagement Framework [ 1 ]. These frameworks, which prioritize reciprocity, respect, mutual learning, flexibility, and mentorship, supported the use of youth-driven and adaptable engagement strategies throughout the project [ 1 , 31 ]. Specifically, the research team employed engagement practices including co-building of a terms of reference document, inviting YAC members to co-chair meetings to foster mutual learning, and offering YAC members a menu of options for contribution, that aligned with the principles outlined in these models [ 1 , 31 ]. Aims 3 (i.e., identifying barriers to youth engagement) and 4 (i.e., summarizing recommendations for youth engagement) were expanded upon by the YAC in Phase 2. As described above, Aim 5 (i.e., benefits and impact of engagement on youth themselves) was deemed crucial by members of the YAC and was exclusively addressed in Phase 2 of this project. It should be noted that while the YAC specifically contributed reflections to Aims 3–5, each member critically reviewed the manuscript and offered feedback as co-authors.

Recruitment of Youth Advisory Council Members

Recruitment for the YAC began in June 2023 through distribution of a recruitment poster via professional contacts (e.g., researchers conducting youth-engaged research, youth advisory council facilitators), social media pages, and email lists (e.g., patient-oriented research listservs, youth advisory council lists). Eligible youth advisors were Canadian youth between the ages of 15–24 years with an expressed interest in youth engagement in health research. Youth applicants completed a Google Form to describe their motivations to become involved and past experience, if applicable. To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, we considered age, sex/gender, race and ethnicity, geographic location, and a range of previous experiences with research (from limited to extensive) in our recruitment process. The research team received interest from 55 individuals, of which 17 were invited to complete a 30-min virtual interview co-led by a researcher and a youth research partner. Eleven youth were selected to join the YAC, and all accepted the team’s invitation to participate. The youth invited to compose the YAC predominantly had previous experience with health care, including as a patient, advocate, youth advisor, research participant, or research assistant. Having and/or disclosing a diagnosis of a chronic health condition was not a criterion for participation in the YAC. A collective discussion was held with youth advisors and it was determined that members preferred not to share their demographic information, though there was representation of members with varying ages, ethnicities, years of experience with engagement, and from different provinces. The research team consisted of female-identified researchers, clinicians, and trainees across interdisciplinary professional backgrounds (e.g., medicine, nursing, social work) with experience engaging youth in research and/or clinical care. As many team members do not have previous youth lived experiences in research and/or clinical care, we were committed to closely collaborating and amplifying youth voices in our research, recognizing that our work, interpretations, and applications to the broader community were limited by our non-experiential understanding of youth engagement in research. The composition of the research team and YAC allowed for critical reflection on the roles of positionality, intersectionality, power, and privilege within youth engagement. The team engaged in reflexive discussions about the importance of prioritizing equity and addressing discrimination in engagement, especially for youth with marginalized identities.

Scheduling and Meetings

In July 2023, a Doodle Poll link was sent out to all youth advisors to find three meeting times that could accommodate the majority of the youth advisors and research team. Subsequently, Microsoft Teams invites were sent via email, and meetings were recorded and transcribed for notetaking purposes.

Prior to each meeting, a meeting agenda and documents were sent for review. Meetings lasted between 1.5 and 2 h and were recorded for those who could not attend. Both the recording and the minutes were collated following each meeting and made available to all youth advisors. Prior to the first meeting, a draft terms of reference document (ToR) was distributed to all youth advisors for review. The ToR contained the purpose and expectations of youth contributing to the project. A preliminary draft of the narrative review was provided to each youth advisor for their consideration both in advance of and during the meetings. Throughout the meetings, a range of communication methods, including Jamboards, chat messaging, and online verbal discussions, were employed to enable youth to exchange ideas and actively facilitate discussions.

During the initial meeting, youth advisors were provided with guidelines aimed at creating a secure environment using a digital interactive whiteboard on Google Jamboard. To maintain confidentiality and facilitate continuous improvement, the youth advisors proposed and subsequently implemented an anonymous feedback form, accessible for youth to complete at their discretion. Subsequently, the youth advisors engaged in a collaborative ideation session to conceptualize their contributions to the synthesis. It was decided that a Slack channel would serve as the primary platform for communication among the youth advisors.

In the second meeting, the council deliberated on the ToR initially formulated by the research team, with the ToR subsequently revised to incorporate the feedback and insights provided by the youth advisors. Additions to the ToR from YAC members included greater options for compensation, strategies for addressing microaggressions, more clarity regarding YAC tasks, roles, and responsibilities, and rationale for selecting 11 advisors for the group. Following this, the group engaged in a comprehensive discussion centered on their reflections concerning the draft of the narrative review. This dialogue highlighted the identified gaps and obstacles associated with involving youth in research from YAC members’ perspectives, proposed recommendations for future research endeavors, and stressed the importance of integrating youth voices into the research process.

In the third meeting, the focus shifted towards the establishment of more focused working groups. These smaller working groups were structured to address specific aspects, including 1) the rationale behind the research (the “why”), 2) reflections on past experiences with youth engagement, 3) methodologies for engaging youth in the context of this review, and 4) formulating recommendations for future research endeavors. Youth advisors were invited to complete a form to rank their areas of interest in these four areas. Based on their ranked responses, working groups were formed and considered the alignment between youth advisor’s preferred method of contribution (e.g., developing visuals, writing a personal reflection, contributing to a table) and the specific topic of the working group.

During the fourth meeting, which was co-chaired by a research team member and a youth advisor (TL) who volunteered for this role, youth advisors and members of the research team reviewed written materials from each working group, discussed each section of the paper, and reached consensus on how the sections would be presented within the article. It was determined that youth advisor work would be combined with the existing narrative review and showcased using textboxes, figures, and tables.

Independent Working Groups

All youth advisors worked in four designated working groups over a 3-week period. Youth advisors communicated via Slack channels, email or personal messaging, with the research team available for support and guidance, as needed. Guidelines for authorship, methods of contributing to each section of the paper (e.g., brainstorming, making point form notes, developing figures), and suggestions on length/format were discussed at YAC meetings. Youth advisors were also provided with a series of resources on a collaborative drive to support their contributions to the review, including a youth-friendly guide to academic writing and examples of reports/journal articles co-authored by youth. All groups worked independently and provided finalized drafts to the research team prior to the fourth meeting.

Compensation

All youth advisors were compensated $25 per hour at the end of their involvement. All youth advisors tracked their hours with a maximum of 20 h. Youth advisors were able to track meetings, self-directed work, and all time dedicated to the project outside of meetings.

Methodology used to engage the Youth Advisory Council in the co-development of this article. Figure developed by the Youth Advisory Council

A total of 65 articles were included, of which 56 were peer-reviewed and 9 were non-peer reviewed. Of the peer-reviewed articles, 14 were qualitative studies, 12 case studies, 7 mixed-methods, 6 commentaries, 2 curriculum development studies, and 2 randomized controlled trials. Additionally, 13 syntheses were included ( n = 7 unstructured literature reviews, n = 3 scoping reviews, n = 2 systematic reviews, n = 1 scoping review protocol). Of the non-peer reviewed studies, 4 were websites and 5 were reports. A table is available in Appendix A displaying included article citations, categorization of peer-reviewed versus non-peer reviewed works, and study methods used.

In this section of the article, results pertaining to each of the five aims are presented. Aims 1 to 4 were addressed in Phase 1 of this project to outline types, frameworks, and barriers to youth engagement and summarize the literature’s recommendations on how to meaningfully engage youth. Aims 3 and 4 were addressed in collaboration with youth advisors in Phase 2 to highlight the benefits and barriers of youth engagement and recommendations from the perspectives of the youth advisors on meaningful youth engagement. Aim 5 was identified as a priority for youth advisors and their reflections are provided on the benefits and impact of engagement on youth themselves.

Aim 1: Key Types of Youth Engagement

There are several approaches to youth engagement in health research, which are based on the aim(s) of a given project, resources available, and preferences of youth themselves (shown in Table 1 ) [ 37 ]. Youth may be involved as research participants , such as completing a survey or participating in a focus group [ 24 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Youth may also take on advisory or consultation roles , where they provide input on the research scope, recruitment strategies, and methods, as well as reviews analyses, results, and/or manuscripts, from which the researcher may decide if or how to implement their suggestions (e.g., advisory councils) [ 24 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. Youth may assume co-production roles , which actively involves youth in the development of research objectives and design, funding proposals, study informational materials, recruitment of participants, data collection instruments, co-facilitating focus groups/interviews, analysis of data, presentations, manuscripts, and knowledge translation activities [ 10 , 24 , 41 ]. This may also be referred to as partnership , which involves active collaboration of youth with researchers to support and/or lead aspects of the project (e.g., collaborate on research methodology, lead certain research activities) [ 24 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. Finally, youth-led research refers to projects that are entirely led by youth, with or without the support of an adult researcher [ 24 , 31 , 38 , 39 , 40 ].

A recent systematic review identified youth engagement practices in mental health-specific research, highlighting the most common youth engagement types were advisory roles, where youth were often involved in providing feedback on the research topic, analysis of qualitative data, and dissemination of findings, with less emphasis placed on co-production methods [ 10 ]. Authors identified one study which utilized a youth-led participatory action research approach in the mental health research setting, which is a power-equalizing methodology involving collaborative decision-making and viewing youth as experts based on their own lived experience [ 44 , 46 , 47 , 48 ].

Aim 2: Frameworks for Youth Engagement

A significant body of literature has proposed various frameworks for supporting patient engagement in research, with research teams more recently developing frameworks specific to youth engagement [ 49 ]. For example, the Youth Engagement in Research Framework , designed by youth and researchers at the University of Manitoba, identified seven strategies to create a culturally-inclusive research environment for youth to meaningfully contribute to the research process [ 50 ]. Strategies included 1) understanding motivations of youth to engage in research, 2) sharing intentions to implement research findings, 3) supporting diverse youth identities in engagement, 4) actively addressing the barriers to youth engagement, 5) reinforcing that engaging in research is a choice, 6) developing trusting relationships through listening and acknowledging contributions, and 7) respecting different forms of knowledge creation, acquisition, and dissemination [ 51 ].

Youth engagement has also been achieved through health research communities of practice , a framework aimed at promoting a space for youth to develop identity, build capacity for youth to develop research, communication, and advocacy skills, lead projects, and develop relationships with the research team [ 52 , 53 , 54 ]. A Canadian research team developed IN•GAUGE®, a health research community of practice which aims to promote collaboration between youth, families, researchers, and policy makers and support the development of strategies to improve child and family health [ 51 , 52 ]. This program uses Youth and Family Advisory Councils, a group of youth and family members who contribute to the direction of the project and provide input on research methods based on their own lived experiences [ 51 ]. This community of practice has built a robust network of youth and family researchers, which helps alleviate some challenges associated with finding youth to support a project.

Researchers at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada have developed the McCain Model for Youth Engagement, which is specific to mental health populations [ 55 ]. This model is based on flexibility (i.e., the youth and research team work together to co-design deliverables/timelines and develop skills that are relevant to the youth’s goals), mentorship (i.e., in the development of research skills, incorporating youth strengths into research design), authentic decision-making (i.e., avoiding ‘tokenism’, carefully considering and implementing youth feedback), and reciprocal learning (i.e., both youth and researchers are ‘teachers’ and ‘learners’). Based on the implementation of the McCain Model, researchers propose that youth engagement should be established when research projects are in the early planning stages, reflect on organizational-level barriers to youth engagement and plan policies and practices around them, and train researchers on the value of engaging youth [ 55 ].

A recent commentary made key recommendations for youth engagement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 30 ]. First, authors propose adapting youth engagement strategies to facilitate rapid decision-making, such as utilizing connections with pre-existing youth advisory councils, providing additional compensation, and offering opportunities for online participation. Additionally, they suggest leveraging virtual platforms for youth engagement methods, while ensuring that youth with disabilities or chronic health conditions are offered appropriate accommodations. Finally, subsidies or shared tablets or computers may be offered to youth researchers to ensure virtual platforms are accessible and reduce technological barriers [ 30 ].

Aim 3: Barriers to Engaging Youth in Research

A series of barriers for engaging youth in health research have been identified in the literature through a narrative review. These barriers are grouped into individual, organizational, and systemic factors and are presented below. In Table 2 , a summary of these barriers, as outlined in the published literature is presented. Youth advisors were invited to review this list and provide their own expansions, reactions, and additions based on their knowledge and experiences. A key limitation in the exploration of barriers related to youth engagement is that much of the existing literature does not specify what level of youth enagagement was being employed.

Individual-Level Barriers: Youth-Specific

Many youth may be discouraged from engaging in research due to their own negative lived experiences with the healthcare system. For example, youth may be distrustful of adult clinicians and researchers, particularly those who may have had traumatic medical experiences (e.g., lengthy hospital/intensive care unit admissions, surgeries, invasive treatments), complex and chronic healthcare conditions, or marginalized identities [ 56 ]. While understanding these perspectives and experiences is crucial to improve health service structures and delivery, they may not be captured without carefully considering and applying appropriate youth engagement methods. Similarly, those with negative previous experiences with youth engagement may feel tokenized or patronized, particularly if they did not feel authentically valued or listened to by the research team [ 57 , 59 ].

Youth characteristics may also result in exclusion from youth engagement and/or exacerbate existing barriers to partnering, particularly the presence of physical disabilities, visual/hearing impairments, intellectual disabilities, neurological conditions, mental health conditions, and/or socioeconomic factors [ 69 , 70 , 78 ]. Youth with disabilities may experience mobility impairments preventing them from easily attending research team meetings, may require additional time and supports to complete research tasks, or utilize assistive devices (e.g., communication tools) [ 69 , 70 , 78 ]. Low literacy levels and/or language barriers may also make engagement inaccessible without appropriate accommodations [ 78 ].

Furthermore, youth priorities may impact willingness to engage in research. Specifically, youth may not feel valued without formal recognition for their contributions, such as financial compensation, volunteer hours, authorship on manuscripts, or opportunities to present research at academic meetings [ 59 ]. They may also not want youth engagement opportunities to infringe on their leisure or personal time, or may be hesitant to engage in projects with long time commitments [ 61 ]. A study highlighting experiences with engaging youth with Bipolar Disorder as peer researchers identified that attrition was also affected by illness relapse, as well as difficulties balancing the responsibilities of the research project with post-secondary education and employment commitments [ 44 ].

Individual-Level Barriers: Adult Researcher-Specific

Research team members may also hold specific beliefs or attitudes towards youth engagement. For example, some researchers may feel anxious about losing control over the research process, may not see youth as experts themselves, or hold biases about the value of youth perspectives [ 24 ]. Researchers may also perceive youth engagement as an added layer of complexity, fear that engagement may impact the scientific rigor of the research design, or be concerned that youth engagement may negatively impact the research quality [ 24 , 26 , 27 , 79 , 80 , 81 ]. Further, some studies have highlighted that researchers do not feel equipped with the skills or knowledge to engage and communicate with youth, or to design studies using youth engagement principles [ 24 , 62 ]. Finally, researchers may experience challenges navigating differing priorities between youth partners and members of the research team. For example, researchers may prioritize more traditional markers of research success, including peer-reviewed manuscripts and grant proposals which often require rapid turnaround times, and be concerned that youth engagement may add to the timeline of a project [ 24 , 62 ].

Organizational-Level Barriers

As youth engagement has emerged as a best practice recently, many academic institutions do not yet have the infrastructure or resources to support engagement opportunities [ 24 ]. While examples of capacity-building programs for youth co-researchers exist in the participatory action research literature [ 82 ], there is a need for further development of training resources to support youth who are engaging in health research [ 83 ]. Formal education on youth engagement is often not included in research training programs, despite many granting agencies recently making changes to require and/or promote patient engagement considerations in funding applications [ 1 , 62 ]. Further, many organizations have not adopted policies to outline best practices for youth engagement, and academic workplace culture also may not yet value youth engagement, resulting in limited willingness to adapt research practices [ 24 , 62 ]. These factors may exacerbate existing difficulties with securing sufficient time and resources to support relationship-building between youth partners and adult members of the research team, which is a commonly cited challenge with youth engagement [ 26 , 27 , 84 , 85 ].

System-Level Barriers

Youth with complex health conditions, such as those with developmental disabilities, often experience stigma and exclusion from clinical research [ 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Specifically, research teams may inaccurately perceive youth with chronic medical conditions as ‘vulnerable’ or ‘fragile’, thus deeming them unable or incapable to contribute meaningfully or complete study-related tasks [ 24 , 70 , 72 , 73 , 86 , 87 ]. Youth with marginalized identities, including Black, Indigenous, and 2SLGBTQIA+ youth, often experience discrimination within the healthcare system, with several studies suggesting mistrust of research institutions, researchers, and healthcare systems stemming from community experiences of mistreatment in research as the most significant barrier to participating in clinical research [ 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 ]. Furthermore, youth from racial and ethnic minorities often receive less information and attention from healthcare providers compared to white youth, potentially limiting awareness of the opportunities and/or value in contributing to health services research [ 68 , 88 ]. Notably, limited literature has considered the impact of other social and structural determinants of health on youth engagement, including income, housing, and geographic location.

Youth may also be apprehensive to share their perspectives, critiques, or suggestions for improvement with adult researchers due to inherent power imbalances [ 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 ]. Given the differences in power between adults and youth, as well as between patients and clinicians/researchers, youth engagement may involve researchers dominating the conversation, thus preventing equal contribution and collaboration. Ultimately, these dynamics have the potential to produce harmful cultures or practices for youth entering research environments, especially among youth from marginalized groups. These barriers and possible outcomes resulting from these power imbalances are elaborated on in Table 2 .

Finally, researchers themselves may face barriers as many major funding agencies have yet to prioritize or incorporate youth engagement in their strategy, resulting in limited funding opportunities to support this type of engagement work or a lack of dedicated time and resources for researchers to build relationships with youth [ 73 ]. Of note, the CIHR has developed a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research, and requires grant proposals in certain funding streams to utilize patient engagement methods [ 1 ]. However, this is not yet universally implemented across funding agencies and does not guide engagement with youth specifically. Additionally, funding agencies often have strict eligibility and assessment criteria, including level of education and evidence of prior research and scholarly outputs, which may inherently exclude youth researchers from participating in funding applications. Finally, granting agencies have funding deadlines which may not accommodate the flexibility needed to build meaningful relationships with youth partners.

Further, while some academic journals have incorporated mandatory reporting on stakeholder and patient involvement in the research design, this is not a standard of practice, and many of these journals are engagement-focused [ 55 , 62 , 89 ]. Finally, there is a lack of consensus around how to report on engagement practice and outcomes of engagement across studies, which contributes to inconsistencies in what constitutes meaningful and effective engagement. While tools are emerging to enhance transparency in reporting engagement, including the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP), no tools exist for youth engagement specifically [ 90 , 91 ]. Barriers to engaging youth in health research from both the literature and the perspectives of the youth advisors involved in this project are summarized in Table 2 .

Aim 4: Facilitators and Recommendations for Youth Engagement

Many studies have highlighted recommendations to improve the implementation of youth engagement across research contexts. Canada’s Youth Policy was created in 2020 to develop a greater understanding of the experiences and perspectives of youth living in Canada [ 92 ]. As part of this, funding opportunities through Canada’s major funding body for health research (CIHR) have begun to focus on providing meaningful opportunities to empower youth in research such as the Healthy Youth Initiative [ 93 ]. Our study findings are in line with these newly implemented policies as they lay the foundation for researchers on how to meaningfully engage youth in health research. In the following section, current strategies, strengths, and facilitators in the health sector that can support youth engagement are outlined, along with areas for improvement. As in Table 2 , these recommendations were reviewed and expanded upon by the YAC in Table 3 .

Engaging Youth from Structurally Marginalized Populations

Engagement of youth with intersecting marginalized identities, such as Black, Indigenous, or 2SLGBTQIA+ youth, and youth with disabilities, language/communication barriers, immigrants and refugees, experiencing homelessness, or living in foster care, may involve several unique considerations [ 31 ]. Research teams should engage both youth and researchers from communities with lived experience to provide insights and support engagement strategies [ 31 ]. It is also important to recognize that engaging youth from Indigenous communities may involve a unique approach. Practices adopted by Indigenous-led organizations may exist that focus on youth empowerment that are specific to their communities. For example, the ‘Indigenous Youth Voices Report ’ produced by The Yellowhead Institute at Toronto Metropolitan University in collaboration with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society outlined requirements for engaging and conducting research with and by Indigenous youth, which included themes such as ensuring research is accessible, uplifting Indigenous youth to co-create research, relationship-building and reciprocity, and using holistic approaches to ensure Two-Spirit, 2SLGBTQ+ youth, and Elders are meaningfully included in research approaches [ 107 ]. Further, a recent study showed evidence supporting the use of web-conferencing technology to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in Australia through co-facilitation of an Online Yarning Circle, an Indigenous methodology that involves sharing, listening, interpreting, and understanding information in an informal setting [ 108 , 109 ].

Additionally, teams should partner with researchers who have experience working with youth from these populations. Women’s College Hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada has recently developed an innovative and inclusive patient engagement model, called Equity-Mobilizing Partnerships in Community (EMPaCT) , designed to highlight the priorities and needs of diverse communities informed by the perspectives of individuals with lived experience [ 110 , 111 ]. Research teams can consult this service to identify approaches to advance equity and social justice within their projects [ 110 , 111 ]. Researchers may also consider using the ‘Valuing All Voices Framework’ , which is a trauma-informed, intersectional framework that guides researchers on how to embed a social justice and health equity lens into patient engagement, with the goal of enhancing inclusivity within health research [ 112 ]. This framework is based on four core concepts, including trust (e.g., focusing on resilience/strength rather than challenges, allowing time to build relationships), self-awareness (e.g., practicing honesty, creating safe spaces), empathy (e.g., allowing the space to share stories), and relationship building (e.g., share experiences, promote ongoing communication, show awareness and sensitivity towards cultural differences) [ 112 ].

All research team members engaged in this work should be offered training on best practices for communicating and engaging with specific populations [ 31 ]. Appropriate accommodations, such as communication tools, accessibility aids, and financial support for involvement, should be offered consistently to optimize engagement of youth with diverse experiences and perspectives [ 78 ]. While not specific to youth engagement, the National Health Service in the United Kingdom has a guidance document which outlines considerations to increase diversity in research participation, including a focus on building trust, conducting research in places familiar to participants, developing accessible recruitment materials, and incorporating peer-led activities [ 113 ]. Finally, researchers should adhere to existing ethical standards for specific marginalized communities, such as the CIHR guidelines for conducting research involving Indigenous people [ 114 ].

Evaluation of Youth Engagement

Robust evaluation of youth engagement strategies is a core component of youth involvement in research and should be used to enhance implementation of principles in research, provide feedback, and ensure researchers are held accountable in upholding best practices [ 104 , 115 ]. While there are no empirically-tested tools for the evaluation of youth engagement in research, qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods may be used, including the Youth Engagement Guidebook developed through the CAMH [ 31 ], the Public and Patient Engagement Evaluation Tool (PPEET) [ 116 ], and the Patient Engagement in Research Scale (PEIRS) [ 117 ]. These instruments are co-designed by patients and are used to evaluate the quality of engagement strategies from the perspective of patient partners themselves [ 117 ]. It should be noted, however, that empirically-tested tools for measuring youth-adult partnerships more broadly do exist [ 118 , 119 , 120 ] and could likely contribute useful information to the measurement of youth engagement in research, specifically. It is also recommended to evaluate the impact of youth engagement from the researchers’ perspectives, which may include reflecting on how valuable the team considered youth partners to be, the extent of youth involvement, and the impact of youth engagement on project outcomes [ 31 ]. Alberta Health Services has developed a resource tool kit containing survey instruments to assist research teams with routine evaluation of their collaboration skills [ 121 ]. Research teams should carefully evaluate and iteratively modify their engagement strategies to ensure youth are meaningfully involved.

Capacity Development

Several independent training programs exist to educate researchers, community stakeholders, patients, youth, and caregivers on engaging patients in health research, including the Patient and Community Engagement in Research (PaCER) program [ 122 ], McMaster University Family Engagement in Research (FER) course [ 123 ], Patient-Oriented Research Curriculum in Child Health (PORCCH) [ 124 ], and Partners in Research (PiR) [ 125 ]. Further, a recent study was conducted to develop simulations in collaboration with interdisciplinary stakeholders to train researchers on how to engage youth in childhood disability research [ 126 ]. These simulation videos focused on aspects of the research process where challenges may arise based on previous experiences of youth and family advisors [ 126 ].

Aim 5: Youth Advisor Reflections on the Impact of Youth Engagement

While describing the evidence-based benefits of youth engagement in research within the literature was beyond the initial scope of the narrative review, youth advisors deemed it critical to present their experiences regarding their motivations for becoming involved in research and the impact of research opportunities on youth. Two youth advisors reflected on the benefits of youth engagement in research from their own experiences and collectively developed the content displayed in Table 4 in a small working group. The same two advisors considered their prior involvement in research and outlined the impact of engagement on their lives in Table 5 . They were invited to share any aspects of their experiences they felt were important to communicate with a broad audience, and selected the format and method of organization of their reflections. These reflections offer unique and valuable insights into the importance of creating opportunities for meaningful and conscientious youth engagement in research using youths’ own language.

Conclusions, Limitations & Future Directions

This narrative review provides an overview of the current literature in youth engagement in health research in combination with the perspectives of youth advisors themselves. The research team and YAC collectively identified key types and frameworks for youth engagement, synthesized several barriers and recommendations for implementing youth engagement, and provided critical reflections on the impact and benefits of youth engagement in the youth voice. While many evidence-based frameworks exist to incorporate and evaluate patient engagement in research, gaps remain in the identification of the best practices for youth engagement specifically [ 49 ]. Much of the available youth engagement literature has focused on involving youth in mental health research, with limited evidence regarding best practices to engage youth with chronic physical health and neurodevelopmental conditions [ 10 , 21 , 24 ]. Further, a paucity of evidence has highlighted the barriers and best practices to engaging youth with low income, those experiencing homelessness, and rural/remote communities in health research.

Limitations

This article employed narrative review methodology to provide an overview of existing research in youth engagement in research. A more structured and systematic review and critical appraisal of included literature by multiple independent reviewers was not within the scope of this paper, which may have excluded relevant literature. The information presented in this article may serve as a foundation for a systematic review of the literature on this topic, which our research team endeavours to complete in the future. Additionally, the search was limited to articles published in English, which may have excluded relevant literature, including potential barriers or recommendations specific to non-English speaking youth. Future research should consider a fulsome exploration of youth engagement strategies, barriers, and recommendations published in languages other than English. Demographic information of youth advisors was not collected or presented as part of this article due to YAC member preference. In addition, a previous diagnosis of a chronic health condition and/or lived experience as a patient was not a criterion for inclusion in the YAC. Rather, youth advisors had a diverse set of experiences with health care (e.g., as patients, advocates, previous youth advisors, research assistants, and/or research participants). Furthermore, youth members were self-selected by the research team, and not recruited from established youth organizations with elected representatives. As such, we are unable to determine whether the youth composing the YAC are representative of the target population. Future studies could examine how demographic characteristics and/or prior experiences with engagement influence youths’ perceptions of barriers, enablers, and recommendations for youth engagement.

Future Directions

To address many of the barriers identified in this review, further work is needed at the organizational- and systems-levels to build policies and programs that support youth engagement in research. As such, youth advisors developed a call to action for researchers and their hopes for the future of youth engagement in research, available in Table 6 . Finally, robust studies are needed to develop and validate youth engagement evaluation tools [ 31 ].

Availability of data and materials

No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Abbreviations

Youth Advisory Council

Terms of reference

CIHR. Strategy for patient-oriented research - patient engagement framework. 2019. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/48413.html#a4 .

Harrington RL, Hanna ML, Oehrlein EM, Camp R, Wheeler R, Cooblall C, et al. Defining patient engagement in research: results of a systematic review and analysis: report of the ISPOR patient-centered special interest group. Value Health. 2020;23(6):677–88.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, Wang Z, Nabhan M, Shippee N, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Mason NR, Sox HC, Whitlock EP. A patient-centered approach to comparative effectiveness research focused on older adults: lessons from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(1):21–8.

Concannon TW, Fuster M, Saunders T, Patel K, Wong JB, Leslie LK, Lau J. A systematic review of stakeholder engagement in comparative effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes research. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(12):1692–701.

Brett J, Staniszewska S, Mockford C, Herron-Marx S, Hughes J, Tysall C, Suleman R. Mapping the impact of patient and public involvement on health and social care research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2014;17(5):637–50.

Crocker JC, Ricci-Cabello I, Parker A, Hirst JA, Chant A, Petit-Zeman S, et al. Impact of patient and public involvement on enrolment and retention in clinical trials: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2018;363:k4738.

Henderson JL, Hawke LD, Relihan J. Youth engagement in the YouthCan IMPACT trial. CMAJ. 2018;190(Suppl):S10–2.

Henderson J, Courey L, Relihan J, Darnay K, Szatmari P, Cleverley K, et al. Youth and family members make meaningful contributions to a randomized-controlled trial: YouthCan IMPACT. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022;16(6):670–7.

McCabe E, Amarbayan MM, Rabi S, Mendoza J, Naqvi SF, Thapa Bajgain K, et al. Youth engagement in mental health research: a systematic review. Health Expect. 2023;26(1):30–50.

Nations U. Youth. 2023. Available from: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth .

Blum RW, Garell D, Hodgman CH, Jorissen TW, Okinow NA, Orr DP, Slap GB. Transition from child-centered to adult health-care systems for adolescents with chronic conditions. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. J Adolesc Health. 1993;14(7):570–6.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Toulany A, Willem Gorter J, Harrison M. A call for action: Recommendations to improve transition to adult care for youth with complex health care needs. Paediatr Child Health. 2022;27(5):297–302.

Catino J, Battistini E, Babchek A. Young people advancing sexual and reproductive health: toward a new normal. Berkeley: University of California; 2019.

Google Scholar

Larsson I, Staland-Nyman C, Svedberg P, Nygren JM, Carlsson IM. Children and young people’s participation in developing interventions in health and well-being: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):507.

Nesrallah S, Klepp KI, Budin-Ljøsne I, Luszczynska A, Brinsden H, Rutter H, et al. Youth engagement in research and policy: the CO-CREATE framework to optimize power balance and mitigate risks of conflicts of interest. Obes Rev. 2023;24 Suppl 1:e13549.

Kana ‘iaupuni SM. Ka ‘akālai Kū Kanaka: a call for strengths-based approaches from a Native Hawaiian perspective. Educ Res. 2005;34(5):32–8.

Article Google Scholar

Krenichyn K, Schaefer-McDaniel N, Clark H, Zeller-Berkman S. Where are young people in youth program evaluation research? Child Youth Environ. 2007;17(2):594–615.

Liebenberg L. Editor’s introduction: special issue: understanding meaningful engagement of youth in research and dissemination of findings. Int J Qual Methods. 2017;16(1):1609406917721531.

Canada U. Inspiring health futures: a vision for Canada’s children, youth and families. 2021.

Mawn L, Welsh P, Stain HJ, Windebank P. Youth Speak: increasing engagement of young people in mental health research. J Ment Health. 2015;24(5):271–5.

Holland S, Renold E, Ross NJ, Hillman A. Power, agency and participatory agendas: a critical exploration of young people’s engagement in participative qualitative research. Childhood. 2010;17(3):360–75.

Delman J. Participatory action research and young adults with psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatr Rehabil J. 2012;35(3):231–4.

Faithfull S, Brophy L, Pennell K, Simmons MB. Barriers and enablers to meaningful youth participation in mental health research: qualitative interviews with youth mental health researchers. J Ment Health. 2019;28(1):56–63.

Bristow S, Atkinson C. Child-led research investigating social, emotional and mental health and wellbeing aspects of playtime. Educ Child Psychol. 2020;37(4):115–29.

Dewa LH, Lawrence-Jones A, Crandell C, Jaques J, Pickles K, Lavelle M, et al. Reflections, impact and recommendations of a co-produced qualitative study with young people who have experience of mental health difficulties. Health Expect. 2021;24 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):134–46.

Dewa LH, Lavelle M, Pickles K, Kalorkoti C, Jaques J, Pappa S, Aylin P. Young adults’ perceptions of using wearables, social media and other technologies to detect worsening mental health: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0222655.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Ennals P, Lessing K, Spies R, Egan R, Hemus P, Droppert K, et al. Co-producing to understand what matters to young people living in youth residential rehabilitation services. Early Interv Psychiatry. 2022;16(7):782–91.

Kendal SE, Milnes L, Welsby H, Pryjmachuk S. Prioritizing young people’s emotional health support needs via participatory research. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2017;24(5):263–71.

Allemang B, Cullen O, Schraeder K, Pintson K, Dimitropoulos G. Recommendations for youth engagement in Canadian mental health research in the context of COVID-19. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2021;30(2):123–30.

PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Darnay K, Hawke LD, Chaim G. INNOVATE research. Toronto youth engagement guidebook for researchers. 2019.

Rumrill PD Jr, Fitzgerald SM. Using narrative literature reviews to build a scientific knowledge base. Work. 2001;16(2):165–70.

PubMed Google Scholar

Sukhera J. Narrative reviews in medical education: key steps for researchers. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(4):418–9.

Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to conduct a systematic review: a narrative literature review. Cureus. 2016;8(11):e864.

Bernardo WM, Nobre MR, Jatene FB. Evidence-based clinical practice. Part II--searching evidence databases. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 2004;50(1):104–8.

Sukhera J. Narrative reviews: flexible, rigorous, and practical. J Grad Med Educ. 2022;14(4):414–7.

Vandall-Walker V. Patient-researcher engagement in health research: active, mututally beneficial, co-creation. In: Proceedings from the 12th Annual Covenant Health Research Day February 7, 2017. Edmonton; 2017.

Beresford P. User involvement, research and health inequalities: developing new directions. Health Soc Care Community. 2007;15(4):306–12.

Roche B, Guta A, Flicker S. Peer research in action i: models of practice. Toronto: The Wellesley Institute; 2010.

CMHDARN, Ask the Experts: A CMHDARN Best Practice Guide to Enabling Consumer and Carer Leadership in Research and Evaluation, Sydney, 2015.

Prior K, Ross K, Conroy C, Barrett E, Bock SG, Boyle J, et al. Youth participation in mental health and substance use research: implementation, perspectives, and learnings of the Matilda Centre Youth Advisory Board. Ment Health Prev. 2022;28:200251.

Dong SY, Nguyen L, Cross A, Doherty-Kirby A, Geboers J, McCauley D, et al. Youth engagement in research: exploring training needs of youth with neurodevelopmental disabilities. Res Involv Engagem. 2023;9(1):50.

Chan M, Scott SD, Campbell A, Elliott SA, Brooks H, Hartling L. Research- and health-related youth advisory groups in Canada: an environmental scan with stakeholder interviews. Health Expect. 2021;24(5):1763–79.

Lapadat L, Balram A, Cheek J, Canas E, Paquette A, Michalak EE. Engaging youth in the bipolar youth action project: community-based participatory research. J Participat Med. 2020;12(3):e19475.

SHARE. SHARE project: sexual health and reproductive empowerment. 2023. Available from: https://www.shareproject.ca/about .

Salami B, Denga B, Taylor R, Ajayi N, Jackson M, Asefaw M, Salma J. Access to mental health for Black youths in Alberta. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2021;41(9):245–53.

Morse JM. Evaluating qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 1991;1(3):283–6.

Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R. Introducing critical participatory action research. In: Kemmis S, McTaggart R, Nixon R, editors. The action research planner: doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2014. p. 1–31.

Chapter Google Scholar

Greenhalgh T, Hinton L, Finlay T, Macfarlane A, Fahy N, Clyde B, Chant A. Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 2019;22(4):785–801.

Woodgate R. Youth engagement in research framework. 2021. Available from: https://theconversation.com/young-canadians-are-asking-to-be-included-in-research-heres-how-to-engage-them-174646 .

Woodgate RL, Zurba M, Tennent P. Advancing patient engagement: youth and family participation in health research communities of practice. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4(1):9.

Wenger E. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998.

Book Google Scholar

Urquhart R, Cornelissen E, Lal S, Colquhoun H, Klein G, Richmond S, Witteman HO. A community of practice for knowledge translation trainees: an innovative approach for learning and collaboration. J Contin Educ Heal Prof. 2013;33(4):274–81.

Hurtubise K, Rivard L, Héguy L, Berbari J, Camden C. Virtual knowledge brokering: describing the roles and strategies used by knowledge brokers in a pediatric physiotherapy virtual community of practice. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2016;36(3):186–94.

Heffernan OS, Herzog TM, Schiralli JE, Hawke LD, Chaim G, Henderson JL. Implementation of a youth-adult partnership model in youth mental health systems research: challenges and successes. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1183–8.

Kim J. Youth involvement in Participatory Action Research (PAR): challenges and barriers. Crit Soc Work. 2016;17:38–53.

Zeldin S, Christens BD, Powers JL. The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: bridging generations for youth development and community change. Am J Community Psychol. 2013;51(3–4):385–97.

Hawke LD, Cleverley K, Settipani C, Rice M, Henderson J. Youth friendliness in mental health and addiction services: protocol for a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2017;7(9):e017555.

Hawke LD, Relihan J, Miller J, McCann E, Rong J, Darnay K, et al. Engaging youth in research planning, design and execution: practical recommendations for researchers. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):944–9.

Kirk S. Methodological and ethical issues in conducting qualitative research with children and young people: a literature review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2007;44(7):1250–60.

Hill M. Children’s voices on ways of having a voice: children’s and young people’s perspectives on methods used in research and consultation. Childhood. 2006;13(1):69–89.

Hawke LD, Darnay K, Relihan J, Khaleghi-Moghaddam M, Barbic S, Lachance L, et al. Enhancing researcher capacity to engage youth in research: researchers’ engagement experiences, barriers and capacity development priorities. Health Expect. 2020;23(3):584–92.

Preston J, Lappin E, Ainsworth J, Wood CL, Dimitri P. Involving children and young people as active partners in paediatric health research. Paediatr Child Health. 2023;34(1):11–6.

Lincoln AK, Borg R, Delman J. Developing a community-based participatory research model to engage transition age youth using mental health service in research. Fam Community Health. 2015;38(1):87–97.

Sengupta S. Factors affecting African-American participation in AIDS research. United States: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; 1999.

Farmer DF, Jackson SA, Camacho F, Hall MA. Attitudes of African American and low socioeconomic status white women toward medical research. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2007;18(1):85–99.

Calderón JL, Baker RS, Fabrega H, Conde JG, Hays RD, Fleming E, Norris K. An ethno-medical perspective on research participation: a qualitative pilot study. Medscape Gen Med. 2006;8(2):23.

Scharff DP, Mathews KJ, Jackson P, Hoffsuemmer J, Martin E, Edwards D. More than Tuskegee: understanding mistrust about research participation. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2010;21(3):879–97.

Kembhavi G, Wirz S. Engaging adolescents with disabilities in research. Alter. 2009;3(3):286–96.

Bailey S, Boddy K, Briscoe S, Morris C. Involving disabled children and young people as partners in research: a systematic review. Child Care Health Dev. 2015;41(4):505–14.

Morris J. Including all children: finding out about the experiences of children with communication and/or cognitive impairments. Child Soc. 2003;17(5):337–48.

Beresford B. Working on well-being: researchers’ experiences of a participative approach to understanding the subjective well-being of disabled young people. Child Soc. 2012;26(3):234–40.

Wadman R, Williams AJ, Brown K, Nielsen E. Supported and valued? A survey of early career researchers’ experiences and perceptions of youth and adult involvement in mental health, self-harm and suicide research. Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5(1):16.

Nygreen K, Ah Kwon S, Sanchez P. Urban youth building community. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):107–23.

Ross L. Sustaining youth participation in a long-term tobacco control initiative: consideration of a social justice perspective. Youth Soc. 2011;43(2):681–704.

Suleiman AB, Soleimanpour S, London J. Youth action for health through youth-led research. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):125–45.

Wilson N, Dasho S, Martin AC, Wallerstein N, Wang CC, Minkler M. Engaging young adolescents in social action through photovoice: the youth empowerment strategies (YES!) project. J Early Adolesc. 2007;27(2):241–61.

Ministry of Children and Family Development BC. Youth engagement toolkit resource guide. 2013.

Campbell A. For their own good: recruiting children for research. Childhood. 2008;15(1):30–49.

Moules T, O’Brien N. Participation in perspective: reflections from research projects. Nurse Res. 2012;19(2):17–22.

Powell MA, Smith AB. Children’s participation rights in research. Childhood. 2009;16(1):124–42.

Nelson Ferguson K, Coen SE, Gilliland J. “It helped me feel like a researcher”: reflections on a capacity-building program to support teens as co-researchers on a participatory project. J Adolesc Res. 2023;0(0):07435584231176992.

Fløtten KJØ, Guerreiro AIF, Simonelli I, Solevåg AL, Aujoulat I. Adolescent and young adult patients as co-researchers: a scoping review. Health Expect. 2021;24(4):1044–55.

Walker E, Shaw E, Nunns M, Moore D, Thompson CJ. No evidence synthesis about me without me: Involving young people in the conduct and dissemination of a complex evidence synthesis. Health Expect. 2021;24(S1):122–33.

Viksveen P, Cardenas NE, Ibenfeldt M, Meldahl LG, Krijger L, Game JR, et al. Involvement of adolescent representatives and coresearchers in mental health research: experiences from a research project. Health Expect. 2022;25(1):322–32.

Clavering EK, McLaughlin J. Children’s participation in health research: from objects to agents? Child Care Health Dev. 2010;36(5):603–11.

Allsop MJ, Holt RJ, Levesley MC, Bhakta B. The engagement of children with disabilities in health-related technology design processes: identifying methodology. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol. 2010;5(1):1–13.

Katz RV, Green BL, Kressin NR, Claudio C, Wang MQ, Russell SL. Willingness of minorities to participate in biomedical studies: confirmatory findings from a follow-up study using the Tuskegee Legacy Project Questionnaire. J Natl Med Assoc. 2007;99(9):1052–60.

Banner D, Bains M, Carroll S, Kandola DK, Rolfe DE, Wong C, Graham ID. Patient and public engagement in integrated knowledge translation research: are we there yet? Res Involv Engagem. 2019;5:8.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Mockford C, Barber R. The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):391–9.

Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ. 2017;358:j3453.

Canada Go. Canada’s youth policy - Canada.ca. 2020.

Research CIoH. Healthy youth initiative. 2023. [updated 2023-06-26]. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/53529.html .

Edwards M, Lawson C, Rahman S, Conley K, Phillips H, Uings R. What does quality healthcare look like to adolescents and young adults? Ask the experts! Clin Med (Lond). 2016;16(2):146–51.

Cavens C, Imms C, Drake G, Garrity N, Wallen M. Perspectives of children and adolescents with cerebral palsy about involvement as research partners: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2022;44(16):4293–302.

Camden C, Shikako-Thomas K, Nguyen T, Graham E, Thomas A, Sprung J, et al. Engaging stakeholders in rehabilitation research: a scoping review of strategies used in partnerships and evaluation of impacts. Disabil Rehabil. 2015;37(15):1390–400.

Bennett V, Gill C, Miller P, Wood A, Bennett C, Ypag N, Singh I. Co-production to understand online help-seeking for young people experiencing emotional abuse and neglect: building capabilities, adapting research methodology and evaluating involvement and impact. Health Expect. 2022;25(6):3143–63.

Powers JL, Tiffany JS. Engaging youth in participatory research and evaluation. J Public Health Manag Pract. 2006;12:S79–87.

Checkoway B, Richards-Schuster K. Youth participation in community evaluation research. Am J Eval. 2003;24(1):21–33.

Scheve JA, Perkins DF, Mincemoyer C. Collaborative teams for youth engagement. J Community Pract. 2006;14(1–2):219–34.

Sheikhan NY, Hawke LD, Cleverley K, Darnay K, Courey L, Szatmari P, et al. ‘It reshaped how I will do research’: a qualitative exploration of team members’ experiences with youth and family engagement in a randomized controlled trial. Health Expect. 2021;24(2):589–600.

Augsberger A, Collins ME, Gecker W, Dougher M. Youth civic engagement: do youth councils reduce or reinforce social inequality? J Adolesc Res. 2018;33(2):187–208.

Buchanan F, Peasgood A, Easton M, Haas K, Narayanan U. The Research Family Advisory Committee: the patient and family view of implementing a research-focused patient engagement strategy. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):2.

Boivin A, L’Espérance A, Gauvin FP, Dumez V, Macaulay AC, Lehoux P, Abelson J. Patient and public engagement in research and health system decision making: a systematic review of evaluation tools. Health Expect. 2018;21(6):1075–84.

ReachBC. Reach BC. 2023. Available from: https://reachbc.ca/ .

Wang L, Micsinszki SK, Goulet-Barteaux M, Gilman C, Phoenix M. Youth and family engagement in childhood disability evidence syntheses: a scoping review. Child Care Health Dev. 2023;49(1):20–35.

Fayant G, Christmas C, Donnelly E, Auger A. Ethical research engagement with indigenous youth: seven requirements. Toronto: Yellowhead Institute, Toronto Metropoliton University; 2020.

Anderson K, Gall A, Butler T, Arley B, Howard K, Cass A, Garvey G. Using web conferencing to engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people in research: a feasibility study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):172.

Bessarab D, Ng’andu B. Yarning about yarning as a legitimate method in indigenous research. Int J Crit Indig Stud. 2010;3(1):37–50.

Sayani A, Maybee A, Manthorne J, Nicholson E, Bloch G, Parsons JA, Hwang SW, Shaw JA, Lofters A. Equity-mobilizing partnerships in community (EMPaCT): co-designing patient engagement to promote health equity. Healthc Q. 2022;24(Special Issue):86–92.

Sayani A. Equity-mobilizing partnerships in community (EMPaCT). Toronto: Women’s College Hospital; 2023. Available from: https://www.wchwihv.ca/our-work/empact/ .

Roche P, Shimmin C, Hickes S, Khan M, Sherzoi O, Wicklund E, et al. Valuing All Voices: refining a trauma-informed, intersectional and critical reflexive framework for patient engagement in health research using a qualitative descriptive approach. Res Involv Engagem. 2020;6(1):42.

Service NH. Increasing diversity in research participation: a good practice guide for engaging with underrepresented groups. 2023.

CIHR. CIHR guidelines for health research involving Aboriginal people. 2007. Available from: https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/29134.html .

Esmail L, Moore E, Rein A. Evaluating patient and stakeholder engagement in research: moving from theory to practice. J Comp Eff Res. 2015;4(2):133–45.

Abelson J, Humphrey A, Syrowatka A, Bidonde J, Judd M. Evaluating patient, family and public engagement in health services improvement and system redesign. Healthc Q. 2018;21(Sp):61–7.

Hamilton CB, Hoens AM, McQuitty S, McKinnon AM, English K, Backman CL, et al. Development and pre-testing of the Patient Engagement In Research Scale (PEIRS) to assess the quality of engagement from a patient perspective. PLoS One. 2018;13(11):e0206588.

Zeldin S, Krauss SE, Collura J, Lucchesi M, Sulaiman AH. Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: a cross national study. Am J Community Psychol. 2014;54(3–4):337–47.

Wu H-CJ, Kornbluh M, Weiss JC, Roddy L. Measuring and understanding authentic youth engagement: the youth-adult partnership rubric. Afterschool matters. 2016.

Krauss SE, Collura J, Zeldin S, Ortega A, Abdullah H, Sulaiman AH. Youth–adult partnership: exploring contributions to empowerment, agency and community connections in Malaysian youth programs. J Youth Adolesc. 2014;43(9):1550–62.

Services AH. A resource toolkit for engaging patient and families at the planning table. 2014. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/pf/pe/if-pf-pe-engage-toolkit.pdf .

Unit ASS. PaCER – patient and community engagement research. 2023. Available from: https://absporu.ca/patient-engagement/pacer/ .

CanChild. Family engagement in research (FER) course. 2023. Available from: https://www.canchild.ca/en/research-in-practice/family-engagement-program/fer-course .

Macarthur C, Walsh CM, Buchanan F, Karoly A, Pires L, McCreath G, Jones NL. Development of the patient-oriented research curriculum in child health (PORCCH). Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):27.

Courvoisier M, Baddeliyanage R, Wilhelm L, Bayliss L, Straus SE, Fahim C. Evaluation of the partners in research course: a patient and researcher co-created course to build capacity in patient-oriented research. Res Involv Engagem. 2021;7(1):76.

Micsinszki SK, Tanel NL, Kowal J, King G, Menna-Dack D, Chu A, Phoenix M. Codesigning simulations and analyzing the process to ascertain principles of authentic and meaningful research engagement in childhood disability research. Res Involv Engagem. 2022;8(1):60.

Harpur P. Nothing about us without us: the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. 2017.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the Edwin S.H. Leong Centre for Healthy Children, The Hospital for Sick Children for supporting this work through the Leong Centre Studentship Award.

This work is supported by the Leong Centre Studentship Award received by Katherine Bailey and Dr. Alene Toulany. The other authors received no additional funding.

Author information

Katherine Bailey and Brooke Allemang contributed equally as co-primary authors.

Authors and Affiliations

Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Katherine Bailey & Kristin Cleverley

Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Katherine Bailey & Alene Toulany

Child Health Evaluative Sciences, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada

Brooke Allemang

Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Ashley Vandermorris & Alene Toulany

Division of Adolescent Medicine, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, ON, M5G 1X8, Canada

KITE, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sarah Munce & Vjura Senthilnathan

Rehabilitation Sciences Institute, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Sarah Munce

Lawrence S. Bloomberg School of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

Kristin Cleverley

Margaret and Wallace McCain Centre for Child, Youth & Family Mental Health, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, ON, Canada

Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Cassandra Chisholm

Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada

Neurosciences and Mental Health, SickKids Research Institute, Toronto, ON, Canada

Cedar Davidson

Michael De Groote School of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Asil El Galad

McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada

Dahlia Leibovich

Department of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

Trinity Lowthian

McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

Jeanna Pillainayagam

Collaborator, Toronto, ON, Canada

Harshini Ramesh, Paul Siska & Madison Snider

Patient Partner, Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, Toronto, ON, Canada

Anna Samson

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KB synthesized the literature, drafted the initial manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. BA provided youth engagement expertise, facilitated youth advisor meetings, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. CC, EC, CD, AEG, DL, TL, JP, HR, AS, PS, MS contributed their perspectives and expertise as part of the Youth Advisory Council, drafted components of the manuscript, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted. BA, AV, SM, KC, VS, and AT conceptualized the design and methods of this study, revised the manuscript, and approved the final manuscript as submitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alene Toulany .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Bailey, K., Allemang, B., Vandermorris, A. et al. Benefits, barriers and recommendations for youth engagement in health research: combining evidence-based and youth perspectives. Res Involv Engagem 10 , 92 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w

Download citation

Received : 15 February 2024

Accepted : 05 July 2024

Published : 02 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-024-00607-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Youth engagement
Patient-oriented research
Narrative review

Research Involvement and Engagement

ISSN: 2056-7529

General enquiries: [email protected]

Free Text Summarizer

Try our other writing services

Want to be 100% sure your summary is plagiarism-free?

Make your life easier with the free summarizer tool.

Academic research

Speed up your academic research by extracting key points.

Every day use

Reduce your reading time by summarizing long blocks of text within seconds.

Easily condense transcripts of long meetings into concise bullet points.

Difficult text

Simplify hard-to-read paragraphs, sentences or complete articles with 1 click.

Why use this summarizer?

100% free: Generate unlimited summaries without paying a penny
Accurate: Get a reliable and trustworthy summary of your original text without any errors
No signup: Use it without giving up any personal data
Secure: No summary data is stored, guaranteeing your privacy
Speed: Get an accurate summary within seconds, thanks to AI
Flexible: Adjust summary length to get more (or less) detailed summaries

How to use this summarizer

1. insert, paste or download your text, 2. pick the way you want to summarize, 3. adjust your summary length, 4. get your summary in seconds.

2 ways of summarizing your text

1. key sentences.

Extracts the key points of your text and turns them into digestible bullet points

2. Concise paragraphs

Summarizes your text in a concise paragraph

Summarize your text today

💸 Free	Unlimited text summarization
🤖 AI-powered	Extract key points in seconds
🎯 Accurate	Ideal for academic research
🗎 Summarize any text	Articles, paragraphs & essays

Want to make sure your summary doesn’t contain any plagiarism?

Scribbr & academic integrity.

Scribbr is committed to protecting academic integrity. Our plagiarism checker , AI Detector , Citation Generator , proofreading services , paraphrasing tool , grammar checker , summarizer, and free Knowledge Base content are designed to help students produce quality academic papers.

We make every effort to prevent our software from being used for fraudulent or manipulative purposes.

Ask our team

Want to contact us directly? No problem. We are always here for you.

Email [email protected]
Start live chat
Call +1 (510) 822-8066
WhatsApp +31 20 261 6040

Frequently asked questions

Yes, it can. The AI has been trained on a big dataset, so technical or complex data won’t be a problem for the text summarizer .

The text summarizer is accessible on both desktop and mobile.

This text summarizer can condense long text within seconds.

At the moment, a maximum of 600 words can be summarized at once, within a few seconds. Want to summarize more? Just paste another block of text. There’s no limit on how much text you can summarize with our text summarizer .

The text summarizer can give you a longer or shorter summary, depending on your wishes. Want a more detailed summary? Just adjust the summary length at the top.

Peer Reviewed

GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation

Article metrics.

CrossRef Citations

Altmetric Score

PDF Downloads

Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research. Our analysis of a selection of questionable GPT-fabricated scientific papers found in Google Scholar shows that many are about applied, often controversial topics susceptible to disinformation: the environment, health, and computing. The resulting enhanced potential for malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base, particularly in politically divisive domains, is a growing concern.

Swedish School of Library and Information Science, University of Borås, Sweden

Department of Arts and Cultural Sciences, Lund University, Sweden

Division of Environmental Communication, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden

Research Questions

Where are questionable publications produced with generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) that can be found via Google Scholar published or deposited?
What are the main characteristics of these publications in relation to predominant subject categories?
How are these publications spread in the research infrastructure for scholarly communication?
How is the role of the scholarly communication infrastructure challenged in maintaining public trust in science and evidence through inappropriate use of generative AI?

research note Summary

A sample of scientific papers with signs of GPT-use found on Google Scholar was retrieved, downloaded, and analyzed using a combination of qualitative coding and descriptive statistics. All papers contained at least one of two common phrases returned by conversational agents that use large language models (LLM) like OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Google Search was then used to determine the extent to which copies of questionable, GPT-fabricated papers were available in various repositories, archives, citation databases, and social media platforms.
Roughly two-thirds of the retrieved papers were found to have been produced, at least in part, through undisclosed, potentially deceptive use of GPT. The majority (57%) of these questionable papers dealt with policy-relevant subjects (i.e., environment, health, computing), susceptible to influence operations. Most were available in several copies on different domains (e.g., social media, archives, and repositories).
Two main risks arise from the increasingly common use of GPT to (mass-)produce fake, scientific publications. First, the abundance of fabricated “studies” seeping into all areas of the research infrastructure threatens to overwhelm the scholarly communication system and jeopardize the integrity of the scientific record. A second risk lies in the increased possibility that convincingly scientific-looking content was in fact deceitfully created with AI tools and is also optimized to be retrieved by publicly available academic search engines, particularly Google Scholar. However small, this possibility and awareness of it risks undermining the basis for trust in scientific knowledge and poses serious societal risks.

Implications

The use of ChatGPT to generate text for academic papers has raised concerns about research integrity. Discussion of this phenomenon is ongoing in editorials, commentaries, opinion pieces, and on social media (Bom, 2023; Stokel-Walker, 2024; Thorp, 2023). There are now several lists of papers suspected of GPT misuse, and new papers are constantly being added. 1 See for example Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . While many legitimate uses of GPT for research and academic writing exist (Huang & Tan, 2023; Kitamura, 2023; Lund et al., 2023), its undeclared use—beyond proofreading—has potentially far-reaching implications for both science and society, but especially for their relationship. It, therefore, seems important to extend the discussion to one of the most accessible and well-known intermediaries between science, but also certain types of misinformation, and the public, namely Google Scholar, also in response to the legitimate concerns that the discussion of generative AI and misinformation needs to be more nuanced and empirically substantiated (Simon et al., 2023).

Google Scholar, https://scholar.google.com , is an easy-to-use academic search engine. It is available for free, and its index is extensive (Gusenbauer & Haddaway, 2020). It is also often touted as a credible source for academic literature and even recommended in library guides, by media and information literacy initiatives, and fact checkers (Tripodi et al., 2023). However, Google Scholar lacks the transparency and adherence to standards that usually characterize citation databases. Instead, Google Scholar uses automated crawlers, like Google’s web search engine (Martín-Martín et al., 2021), and the inclusion criteria are based on primarily technical standards, allowing any individual author—with or without scientific affiliation—to upload papers to be indexed (Google Scholar Help, n.d.). It has been shown that Google Scholar is susceptible to manipulation through citation exploits (Antkare, 2020) and by providing access to fake scientific papers (Dadkhah et al., 2017). A large part of Google Scholar’s index consists of publications from established scientific journals or other forms of quality-controlled, scholarly literature. However, the index also contains a large amount of gray literature, including student papers, working papers, reports, preprint servers, and academic networking sites, as well as material from so-called “questionable” academic journals, including paper mills. The search interface does not offer the possibility to filter the results meaningfully by material type, publication status, or form of quality control, such as limiting the search to peer-reviewed material.

To understand the occurrence of ChatGPT (co-)authored work in Google Scholar’s index, we scraped it for publications, including one of two common ChatGPT responses (see Appendix A) that we encountered on social media and in media reports (DeGeurin, 2024). The results of our descriptive statistical analyses showed that around 62% did not declare the use of GPTs. Most of these GPT-fabricated papers were found in non-indexed journals and working papers, but some cases included research published in mainstream scientific journals and conference proceedings. 2 Indexed journals mean scholarly journals indexed by abstract and citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science, where the indexation implies journals with high scientific quality. Non-indexed journals are journals that fall outside of this indexation. More than half (57%) of these GPT-fabricated papers concerned policy-relevant subject areas susceptible to influence operations. To avoid increasing the visibility of these publications, we abstained from referencing them in this research note. However, we have made the data available in the Harvard Dataverse repository.

The publications were related to three issue areas—health (14.5%), environment (19.5%) and computing (23%)—with key terms such “healthcare,” “COVID-19,” or “infection”for health-related papers, and “analysis,” “sustainable,” and “global” for environment-related papers. In several cases, the papers had titles that strung together general keywords and buzzwords, thus alluding to very broad and current research. These terms included “biology,” “telehealth,” “climate policy,” “diversity,” and “disrupting,” to name just a few. While the study’s scope and design did not include a detailed analysis of which parts of the articles included fabricated text, our dataset did contain the surrounding sentences for each occurrence of the suspicious phrases that formed the basis for our search and subsequent selection. Based on that, we can say that the phrases occurred in most sections typically found in scientific publications, including the literature review, methods, conceptual and theoretical frameworks, background, motivation or societal relevance, and even discussion. This was confirmed during the joint coding, where we read and discussed all articles. It became clear that not just the text related to the telltale phrases was created by GPT, but that almost all articles in our sample of questionable articles likely contained traces of GPT-fabricated text everywhere.

Evidence hacking and backfiring effects

Generative pre-trained transformers (GPTs) can be used to produce texts that mimic scientific writing. These texts, when made available online—as we demonstrate—leak into the databases of academic search engines and other parts of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication. This development exacerbates problems that were already present with less sophisticated text generators (Antkare, 2020; Cabanac & Labbé, 2021). Yet, the public release of ChatGPT in 2022, together with the way Google Scholar works, has increased the likelihood of lay people (e.g., media, politicians, patients, students) coming across questionable (or even entirely GPT-fabricated) papers and other problematic research findings. Previous research has emphasized that the ability to determine the value and status of scientific publications for lay people is at stake when misleading articles are passed off as reputable (Haider & Åström, 2017) and that systematic literature reviews risk being compromised (Dadkhah et al., 2017). It has also been highlighted that Google Scholar, in particular, can be and has been exploited for manipulating the evidence base for politically charged issues and to fuel conspiracy narratives (Tripodi et al., 2023). Both concerns are likely to be magnified in the future, increasing the risk of what we suggest calling evidence hacking —the strategic and coordinated malicious manipulation of society’s evidence base.

The authority of quality-controlled research as evidence to support legislation, policy, politics, and other forms of decision-making is undermined by the presence of undeclared GPT-fabricated content in publications professing to be scientific. Due to the large number of archives, repositories, mirror sites, and shadow libraries to which they spread, there is a clear risk that GPT-fabricated, questionable papers will reach audiences even after a possible retraction. There are considerable technical difficulties involved in identifying and tracing computer-fabricated papers (Cabanac & Labbé, 2021; Dadkhah et al., 2023; Jones, 2024), not to mention preventing and curbing their spread and uptake.

However, as the rise of the so-called anti-vaxx movement during the COVID-19 pandemic and the ongoing obstruction and denial of climate change show, retracting erroneous publications often fuels conspiracies and increases the following of these movements rather than stopping them. To illustrate this mechanism, climate deniers frequently question established scientific consensus by pointing to other, supposedly scientific, studies that support their claims. Usually, these are poorly executed, not peer-reviewed, based on obsolete data, or even fraudulent (Dunlap & Brulle, 2020). A similar strategy is successful in the alternative epistemic world of the global anti-vaccination movement (Carrion, 2018) and the persistence of flawed and questionable publications in the scientific record already poses significant problems for health research, policy, and lawmakers, and thus for society as a whole (Littell et al., 2024). Considering that a person’s support for “doing your own research” is associated with increased mistrust in scientific institutions (Chinn & Hasell, 2023), it will be of utmost importance to anticipate and consider such backfiring effects already when designing a technical solution, when suggesting industry or legal regulation, and in the planning of educational measures.

Recommendations

Solutions should be based on simultaneous considerations of technical, educational, and regulatory approaches, as well as incentives, including social ones, across the entire research infrastructure. Paying attention to how these approaches and incentives relate to each other can help identify points and mechanisms for disruption. Recognizing fraudulent academic papers must happen alongside understanding how they reach their audiences and what reasons there might be for some of these papers successfully “sticking around.” A possible way to mitigate some of the risks associated with GPT-fabricated scholarly texts finding their way into academic search engine results would be to provide filtering options for facets such as indexed journals, gray literature, peer-review, and similar on the interface of publicly available academic search engines. Furthermore, evaluation tools for indexed journals 3 Such as LiU Journal CheckUp, https://ep.liu.se/JournalCheckup/default.aspx?lang=eng . could be integrated into the graphical user interfaces and the crawlers of these academic search engines. To enable accountability, it is important that the index (database) of such a search engine is populated according to criteria that are transparent, open to scrutiny, and appropriate to the workings of science and other forms of academic research. Moreover, considering that Google Scholar has no real competitor, there is a strong case for establishing a freely accessible, non-specialized academic search engine that is not run for commercial reasons but for reasons of public interest. Such measures, together with educational initiatives aimed particularly at policymakers, science communicators, journalists, and other media workers, will be crucial to reducing the possibilities for and effects of malicious manipulation or evidence hacking. It is important not to present this as a technical problem that exists only because of AI text generators but to relate it to the wider concerns in which it is embedded. These range from a largely dysfunctional scholarly publishing system (Haider & Åström, 2017) and academia’s “publish or perish” paradigm to Google’s near-monopoly and ideological battles over the control of information and ultimately knowledge. Any intervention is likely to have systemic effects; these effects need to be considered and assessed in advance and, ideally, followed up on.

Our study focused on a selection of papers that were easily recognizable as fraudulent. We used this relatively small sample as a magnifying glass to examine, delineate, and understand a problem that goes beyond the scope of the sample itself, which however points towards larger concerns that require further investigation. The work of ongoing whistleblowing initiatives 4 Such as Academ-AI, https://www.academ-ai.info/ , and Retraction Watch, https://retractionwatch.com/papers-and-peer-reviews-with-evidence-of-chatgpt-writing/ . , recent media reports of journal closures (Subbaraman, 2024), or GPT-related changes in word use and writing style (Cabanac et al., 2021; Stokel-Walker, 2024) suggest that we only see the tip of the iceberg. There are already more sophisticated cases (Dadkhah et al., 2023) as well as cases involving fabricated images (Gu et al., 2022). Our analysis shows that questionable and potentially manipulative GPT-fabricated papers permeate the research infrastructure and are likely to become a widespread phenomenon. Our findings underline that the risk of fake scientific papers being used to maliciously manipulate evidence (see Dadkhah et al., 2017) must be taken seriously. Manipulation may involve undeclared automatic summaries of texts, inclusion in literature reviews, explicit scientific claims, or the concealment of errors in studies so that they are difficult to detect in peer review. However, the mere possibility of these things happening is a significant risk in its own right that can be strategically exploited and will have ramifications for trust in and perception of science. Society’s methods of evaluating sources and the foundations of media and information literacy are under threat and public trust in science is at risk of further erosion, with far-reaching consequences for society in dealing with information disorders. To address this multifaceted problem, we first need to understand why it exists and proliferates.

Finding 1: 139 GPT-fabricated, questionable papers were found and listed as regular results on the Google Scholar results page. Non-indexed journals dominate.

Most questionable papers we found were in non-indexed journals or were working papers, but we did also find some in established journals, publications, conferences, and repositories. We found a total of 139 papers with a suspected deceptive use of ChatGPT or similar LLM applications (see Table 1). Out of these, 19 were in indexed journals, 89 were in non-indexed journals, 19 were student papers found in university databases, and 12 were working papers (mostly in preprint databases). Table 1 divides these papers into categories. Health and environment papers made up around 34% (47) of the sample. Of these, 66% were present in non-indexed journals.


Indexed journals*	5	3	4	7	19
Non-indexed journals	18	18	13	40	89
Student papers	4	3	1	11	19
Working papers	5	3	2	2	12
Total	32	27	20	60	139

Finding 2: GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are disseminated online, permeating the research infrastructure for scholarly communication, often in multiple copies. Applied topics with practical implications dominate.

The 20 papers concerning health-related issues are distributed across 20 unique domains, accounting for 46 URLs. The 27 papers dealing with environmental issues can be found across 26 unique domains, accounting for 56 URLs. Most of the identified papers exist in multiple copies and have already spread to several archives, repositories, and social media. It would be difficult, or impossible, to remove them from the scientific record.

As apparent from Table 2, GPT-fabricated, questionable papers are seeping into most parts of the online research infrastructure for scholarly communication. Platforms on which identified papers have appeared include ResearchGate, ORCiD, Journal of Population Therapeutics and Clinical Pharmacology (JPTCP), Easychair, Frontiers, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineer (IEEE), and X/Twitter. Thus, even if they are retracted from their original source, it will prove very difficult to track, remove, or even just mark them up on other platforms. Moreover, unless regulated, Google Scholar will enable their continued and most likely unlabeled discoverability.


Environment	researchgate.net (13)	orcid.org (4)	easychair.org (3)	ijope.com* (3)	publikasiindonesia.id (3)
Health	researchgate.net (15)	ieee.org (4)	twitter.com (3)	jptcp.com** (2)	frontiersin.org (2)

A word rain visualization (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023), which combines word prominences through TF-IDF 5 Term frequency–inverse document frequency , a method for measuring the significance of a word in a document compared to its frequency across all documents in a collection. scores with semantic similarity of the full texts of our sample of GPT-generated articles that fall into the “Environment” and “Health” categories, reflects the two categories in question. However, as can be seen in Figure 1, it also reveals overlap and sub-areas. The y-axis shows word prominences through word positions and font sizes, while the x-axis indicates semantic similarity. In addition to a certain amount of overlap, this reveals sub-areas, which are best described as two distinct events within the word rain. The event on the left bundles terms related to the development and management of health and healthcare with “challenges,” “impact,” and “potential of artificial intelligence”emerging as semantically related terms. Terms related to research infrastructures, environmental, epistemic, and technological concepts are arranged further down in the same event (e.g., “system,” “climate,” “understanding,” “knowledge,” “learning,” “education,” “sustainable”). A second distinct event further to the right bundles terms associated with fish farming and aquatic medicinal plants, highlighting the presence of an aquaculture cluster. Here, the prominence of groups of terms such as “used,” “model,” “-based,” and “traditional” suggests the presence of applied research on these topics. The two events making up the word rain visualization, are linked by a less dominant but overlapping cluster of terms related to “energy” and “water.”

The bar chart of the terms in the paper subset (see Figure 2) complements the word rain visualization by depicting the most prominent terms in the full texts along the y-axis. Here, word prominences across health and environment papers are arranged descendingly, where values outside parentheses are TF-IDF values (relative frequencies) and values inside parentheses are raw term frequencies (absolute frequencies).

Finding 3: Google Scholar presents results from quality-controlled and non-controlled citation databases on the same interface, providing unfiltered access to GPT-fabricated questionable papers.

Google Scholar’s central position in the publicly accessible scholarly communication infrastructure, as well as its lack of standards, transparency, and accountability in terms of inclusion criteria, has potentially serious implications for public trust in science. This is likely to exacerbate the already-known potential to exploit Google Scholar for evidence hacking (Tripodi et al., 2023) and will have implications for any attempts to retract or remove fraudulent papers from their original publication venues. Any solution must consider the entirety of the research infrastructure for scholarly communication and the interplay of different actors, interests, and incentives.

We searched and scraped Google Scholar using the Python library Scholarly (Cholewiak et al., 2023) for papers that included specific phrases known to be common responses from ChatGPT and similar applications with the same underlying model (GPT3.5 or GPT4): “as of my last knowledge update” and/or “I don’t have access to real-time data” (see Appendix A). This facilitated the identification of papers that likely used generative AI to produce text, resulting in 227 retrieved papers. The papers’ bibliographic information was automatically added to a spreadsheet and downloaded into Zotero. 6 An open-source reference manager, https://zotero.org .

We employed multiple coding (Barbour, 2001) to classify the papers based on their content. First, we jointly assessed whether the paper was suspected of fraudulent use of ChatGPT (or similar) based on how the text was integrated into the papers and whether the paper was presented as original research output or the AI tool’s role was acknowledged. Second, in analyzing the content of the papers, we continued the multiple coding by classifying the fraudulent papers into four categories identified during an initial round of analysis—health, environment, computing, and others—and then determining which subjects were most affected by this issue (see Table 1). Out of the 227 retrieved papers, 88 papers were written with legitimate and/or declared use of GPTs (i.e., false positives, which were excluded from further analysis), and 139 papers were written with undeclared and/or fraudulent use (i.e., true positives, which were included in further analysis). The multiple coding was conducted jointly by all authors of the present article, who collaboratively coded and cross-checked each other’s interpretation of the data simultaneously in a shared spreadsheet file. This was done to single out coding discrepancies and settle coding disagreements, which in turn ensured methodological thoroughness and analytical consensus (see Barbour, 2001). Redoing the category coding later based on our established coding schedule, we achieved an intercoder reliability (Cohen’s kappa) of 0.806 after eradicating obvious differences.

The ranking algorithm of Google Scholar prioritizes highly cited and older publications (Martín-Martín et al., 2016). Therefore, the position of the articles on the search engine results pages was not particularly informative, considering the relatively small number of results in combination with the recency of the publications. Only the query “as of my last knowledge update” had more than two search engine result pages. On those, questionable articles with undeclared use of GPTs were evenly distributed across all result pages (min: 4, max: 9, mode: 8), with the proportion of undeclared use being slightly higher on average on later search result pages.

To understand how the papers making fraudulent use of generative AI were disseminated online, we programmatically searched for the paper titles (with exact string matching) in Google Search from our local IP address (see Appendix B) using the googlesearch – python library(Vikramaditya, 2020). We manually verified each search result to filter out false positives—results that were not related to the paper—and then compiled the most prominent URLs by field. This enabled the identification of other platforms through which the papers had been spread. We did not, however, investigate whether copies had spread into SciHub or other shadow libraries, or if they were referenced in Wikipedia.

We used descriptive statistics to count the prevalence of the number of GPT-fabricated papers across topics and venues and top domains by subject. The pandas software library for the Python programming language (The pandas development team, 2024) was used for this part of the analysis. Based on the multiple coding, paper occurrences were counted in relation to their categories, divided into indexed journals, non-indexed journals, student papers, and working papers. The schemes, subdomains, and subdirectories of the URL strings were filtered out while top-level domains and second-level domains were kept, which led to normalizing domain names. This, in turn, allowed the counting of domain frequencies in the environment and health categories. To distinguish word prominences and meanings in the environment and health-related GPT-fabricated questionable papers, a semantically-aware word cloud visualization was produced through the use of a word rain (Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala, 2023) for full-text versions of the papers. Font size and y-axis positions indicate word prominences through TF-IDF scores for the environment and health papers (also visualized in a separate bar chart with raw term frequencies in parentheses), and words are positioned along the x-axis to reflect semantic similarity (Skeppstedt et al., 2024), with an English Word2vec skip gram model space (Fares et al., 2017). An English stop word list was used, along with a manually produced list including terms such as “https,” “volume,” or “years.”

Artificial Intelligence
/ Search engines

Cite this Essay

Haider, J., Söderström, K. R., Ekström, B., & Rödl, M. (2024). GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features, spread, and implications for preempting evidence manipulation. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review . https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-156

/ Appendix B

Bibliography

Antkare, I. (2020). Ike Antkare, his publications, and those of his disciples. In M. Biagioli & A. Lippman (Eds.), Gaming the metrics (pp. 177–200). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.003.0018

Barbour, R. S. (2001). Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: A case of the tail wagging the dog? BMJ , 322 (7294), 1115–1117. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1115

Bom, H.-S. H. (2023). Exploring the opportunities and challenges of ChatGPT in academic writing: A roundtable discussion. Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging , 57 (4), 165–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13139-023-00809-2

Cabanac, G., & Labbé, C. (2021). Prevalence of nonsensical algorithmically generated papers in the scientific literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 72 (12), 1461–1476. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24495

Cabanac, G., Labbé, C., & Magazinov, A. (2021). Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science. Evidence of critical issues affecting established journals . arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2107.06751

Carrion, M. L. (2018). “You need to do your research”: Vaccines, contestable science, and maternal epistemology. Public Understanding of Science , 27 (3), 310–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728024

Centre for Digital Humanities Uppsala (2023). CDHUppsala/word-rain [Computer software]. https://github.com/CDHUppsala/word-rain

Chinn, S., & Hasell, A. (2023). Support for “doing your own research” is associated with COVID-19 misperceptions and scientific mistrust. Harvard Kennedy School (HSK) Misinformation Review, 4 (3). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-117

Cholewiak, S. A., Ipeirotis, P., Silva, V., & Kannawadi, A. (2023). SCHOLARLY: Simple access to Google Scholar authors and citation using Python (1.5.0) [Computer software]. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5764801

Dadkhah, M., Lagzian, M., & Borchardt, G. (2017). Questionable papers in citation databases as an issue for literature review. Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling , 11 (2), 181–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12079-016-0370-6

Dadkhah, M., Oermann, M. H., Hegedüs, M., Raman, R., & Dávid, L. D. (2023). Detection of fake papers in the era of artificial intelligence. Diagnosis , 10 (4), 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2023-0090

DeGeurin, M. (2024, March 19). AI-generated nonsense is leaking into scientific journals. Popular Science. https://www.popsci.com/technology/ai-generated-text-scientific-journals/

Dunlap, R. E., & Brulle, R. J. (2020). Sources and amplifiers of climate change denial. In D.C. Holmes & L. M. Richardson (Eds.), Research handbook on communicating climate change (pp. 49–61). Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781789900408.00013

Fares, M., Kutuzov, A., Oepen, S., & Velldal, E. (2017). Word vectors, reuse, and replicability: Towards a community repository of large-text resources. In J. Tiedemann & N. Tahmasebi (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 271–276). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W17-0237

Google Scholar Help. (n.d.). Inclusion guidelines for webmasters . https://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/inclusion.html

Gu, J., Wang, X., Li, C., Zhao, J., Fu, W., Liang, G., & Qiu, J. (2022). AI-enabled image fraud in scientific publications. Patterns , 3 (7), 100511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.patter.2022.100511

Gusenbauer, M., & Haddaway, N. R. (2020). Which academic search systems are suitable for systematic reviews or meta-analyses? Evaluating retrieval qualities of Google Scholar, PubMed, and 26 other resources. Research Synthesis Methods , 11 (2), 181–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1378

Haider, J., & Åström, F. (2017). Dimensions of trust in scholarly communication: Problematizing peer review in the aftermath of John Bohannon’s “Sting” in science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 68 (2), 450–467. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23669

Huang, J., & Tan, M. (2023). The role of ChatGPT in scientific communication: Writing better scientific review articles. American Journal of Cancer Research , 13 (4), 1148–1154. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10164801/

Jones, N. (2024). How journals are fighting back against a wave of questionable images. Nature , 626 (8000), 697–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00372-6

Kitamura, F. C. (2023). ChatGPT is shaping the future of medical writing but still requires human judgment. Radiology , 307 (2), e230171. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.230171

Littell, J. H., Abel, K. M., Biggs, M. A., Blum, R. W., Foster, D. G., Haddad, L. B., Major, B., Munk-Olsen, T., Polis, C. B., Robinson, G. E., Rocca, C. H., Russo, N. F., Steinberg, J. R., Stewart, D. E., Stotland, N. L., Upadhyay, U. D., & Ditzhuijzen, J. van. (2024). Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ , 384 , e076518. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518

Lund, B. D., Wang, T., Mannuru, N. R., Nie, B., Shimray, S., & Wang, Z. (2023). ChatGPT and a new academic reality: Artificial Intelligence-written research papers and the ethics of the large language models in scholarly publishing. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 74 (5), 570–581. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750

Martín-Martín, A., Orduna-Malea, E., Ayllón, J. M., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2016). Back to the past: On the shoulders of an academic search engine giant. Scientometrics , 107 , 1477–1487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1917-2

Martín-Martín, A., Thelwall, M., Orduna-Malea, E., & Delgado López-Cózar, E. (2021). Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus, Dimensions, Web of Science, and OpenCitations’ COCI: A multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics , 126 (1), 871–906. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4

Simon, F. M., Altay, S., & Mercier, H. (2023). Misinformation reloaded? Fears about the impact of generative AI on misinformation are overblown. Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review, 4 (5). https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-127

Skeppstedt, M., Ahltorp, M., Kucher, K., & Lindström, M. (2024). From word clouds to Word Rain: Revisiting the classic word cloud to visualize climate change texts. Information Visualization , 23 (3), 217–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/14738716241236188

Swedish Research Council. (2017). Good research practice. Vetenskapsrådet.

Stokel-Walker, C. (2024, May 1.). AI Chatbots Have Thoroughly Infiltrated Scientific Publishing . Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/chatbots-have-thoroughly-infiltrated-scientific-publishing/

Subbaraman, N. (2024, May 14). Flood of fake science forces multiple journal closures: Wiley to shutter 19 more journals, some tainted by fraud. The Wall Street Journal . https://www.wsj.com/science/academic-studies-research-paper-mills-journals-publishing-f5a3d4bc

The pandas development team. (2024). pandas-dev/pandas: Pandas (v2.2.2) [Computer software]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10957263

Thorp, H. H. (2023). ChatGPT is fun, but not an author. Science , 379 (6630), 313–313. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg7879

Tripodi, F. B., Garcia, L. C., & Marwick, A. E. (2023). ‘Do your own research’: Affordance activation and disinformation spread. Information, Communication & Society , 27 (6), 1212–1228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2245869

Vikramaditya, N. (2020). Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch [Computer software]. https://github.com/Nv7-GitHub/googlesearch

This research has been supported by Mistra, the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Environmental Research, through the research program Mistra Environmental Communication (Haider, Ekström, Rödl) and the Marcus and Amalia Wallenberg Foundation [2020.0004] (Söderström).

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

The research described in this article was carried out under Swedish legislation. According to the relevant EU and Swedish legislation (2003:460) on the ethical review of research involving humans (“Ethical Review Act”), the research reported on here is not subject to authorization by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (“etikprövningsmyndigheten”) (SRC, 2017).

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 that the original author and source are properly credited.

Data Availability

All data needed to replicate this study are available at the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WUVD8X

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on the article manuscript as well as the editorial group of Harvard Kennedy School (HKS) Misinformation Review for their thoughtful feedback and input.

Environment
Science & Technology
Business & Industry
Health & Public Welfare
Topics (CFR Indexing Terms)
Public Inspection
Presidential Documents
Document Search
Advanced Document Search
Public Inspection Search
Reader Aids Home
Office of the Federal Register Announcements
Using FederalRegister.Gov
Understanding the Federal Register
Recent Site Updates
Federal Register & CFR Statistics
Videos & Tutorials
Developer Resources
Government Policy and OFR Procedures
Congressional Review
My Clipboard
My Comments
My Subscriptions
Sign In / Sign Up
Site Feedback
Search the Federal Register

This site displays a prototype of a “Web 2.0” version of the daily Federal Register. It is not an official legal edition of the Federal Register, and does not replace the official print version or the official electronic version on GPO’s govinfo.gov.

The documents posted on this site are XML renditions of published Federal Register documents. Each document posted on the site includes a link to the corresponding official PDF file on govinfo.gov. This prototype edition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov will remain an unofficial informational resource until the Administrative Committee of the Federal Register (ACFR) issues a regulation granting it official legal status. For complete information about, and access to, our official publications and services, go to About the Federal Register on NARA's archives.gov.

The OFR/GPO partnership is committed to presenting accurate and reliable regulatory information on FederalRegister.gov with the objective of establishing the XML-based Federal Register as an ACFR-sanctioned publication in the future. While every effort has been made to ensure that the material on FederalRegister.gov is accurately displayed, consistent with the official SGML-based PDF version on govinfo.gov, those relying on it for legal research should verify their results against an official edition of the Federal Register. Until the ACFR grants it official status, the XML rendition of the daily Federal Register on FederalRegister.gov does not provide legal notice to the public or judicial notice to the courts.

Design Updates: As part of our ongoing effort to make FederalRegister.gov more accessible and easier to use we've enlarged the space available to the document content and moved all document related data into the utility bar on the left of the document. Read more in our feature announcement .

Identifying Priority Focus Areas for Future Guidance Development and Engagement With Interested Parties in Model-Informed Drug Development; Request for Information

A Notice by the Food and Drug Administration on 09/03/2024

This document has a comment period that ends in 61 days. (11/04/2024) Submit a formal comment

Thank you for taking the time to create a comment. Your input is important.

Once you have filled in the required fields below you can preview and/or submit your comment to the Health and Human Services Department for review. All comments are considered public and will be posted online once the Health and Human Services Department has reviewed them.

You can view alternative ways to comment or you may also comment via Regulations.gov at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FDA-2024-N-3904-0001 .

What is your comment about?

Note: You can attach your comment as a file and/or attach supporting documents to your comment. Attachment Requirements .

this will NOT be posted on regulations.gov

Opt to receive email confirmation of submission and tracking number?
Tell us about yourself! I am... *
First Name *
Last Name *
State Alabama Alaska American Samoa Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virgin Islands Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming
Country Afghanistan Åland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Côte d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestine, State of Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Réunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States United States Minor Outlying Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam Virgin Islands, British Virgin Islands, U.S. Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe
Organization Type * Company Organization Federal State Local Tribal Regional Foreign U.S. House of Representatives U.S. Senate
Organization Name *
You are filing a document into an official docket. Any personal information included in your comment text and/or uploaded attachment(s) may be publicly viewable on the web.
I read and understand the statement above.
Preview Comment

This document has been published in the Federal Register . Use the PDF linked in the document sidebar for the official electronic format.

Document Details Published Content - Document Details Agencies Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Agency/Docket Number Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3904 Document Citation 89 FR 71374 Document Number 2024-19712 Document Type Notice Pages 71374-71376 (3 pages) Publication Date 09/03/2024 Published Content - Document Details
View printed version (PDF)
Document Dates Published Content - Document Dates Comments Close 11/04/2024 Dates Text Either electronic or written comments on the notice must be submitted by November 4, 2024. Published Content - Document Dates

This table of contents is a navigational tool, processed from the headings within the legal text of Federal Register documents. This repetition of headings to form internal navigation links has no substantive legal effect.

Electronic Submissions

Written/paper submissions, for further information contact:, supplementary information:, i. background, ii. request for information, a. methods and best practices, b. context-specific considerations, c. regulatory engagement, d. communication of policies and interested parties' engagement.

Comments are being accepted - Submit a public comment on this document .

FederalRegister.gov retrieves relevant information about this document from Regulations.gov to provide users with additional context. This information is not part of the official Federal Register document.

Identifying Priority Focus Areas for Future Guidance Development and Engagement with Interested Parties in Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD); Request for Information

Sharing Enhanced Content - Sharing Shorter Document URL https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-19712 Email Email this document to a friend Enhanced Content - Sharing
Print this document

Document page views are updated periodically throughout the day and are cumulative counts for this document. Counts are subject to sampling, reprocessing and revision (up or down) throughout the day.

This document is also available in the following formats:

More information and documentation can be found in our developer tools pages .

This PDF is the current document as it appeared on Public Inspection on 08/30/2024 at 8:45 am.

It was viewed 0 times while on Public Inspection.

If you are using public inspection listings for legal research, you should verify the contents of the documents against a final, official edition of the Federal Register. Only official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notice of publication to the public and judicial notice to the courts under 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507 . Learn more here .

Document headings vary by document type but may contain the following:

the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions

See the Document Drafting Handbook for more details.

Department of Health and Human Services

Food and drug administration.

[Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3904]

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

Notice; request for Information.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) are announcing a request for information (RFI) for advancing model-informed drug development (MIDD). The purpose of this request is to obtain feedback on how to increase application of established MIDD approaches in regulatory decision making, to identify how emerging MIDD approaches are being incorporated within drug product development, and to identify opportunities to enhance interactions with FDA when discussing MIDD approaches. We intend to use the information submitted in response to this request to identify and prioritize potential focus areas for future policy or guidance development and enhance engagement with interested parties, including interactions as part of the ( print page 71375) MIDD Paired Meeting Program and other formal meetings with drug developers.

Either electronic or written comments on the notice must be submitted by November 4, 2024.

You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The https://www.regulations.gov electronic filing system will accept comments until 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time at the end of November 4, 2024. Comments received by mail/hand delivery/courier (for written/paper submissions) will be considered timely if they are received on or before that date.

Submit electronic comments in the following way:

Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov . Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov .
If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).

Submit written/paper submissions as follows:

Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”

Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No. FDA-2024-N-3904 for “Identifying Priority Focus Areas for Future Guidance Development and Engagement with Interested Parties in Model-Informed Drug Development; Request for Information.” Received comments, those filed in a timely manner (see ADDRESSES ), will be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as “Confidential Submissions,” publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 240-402-7500.

Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov . Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of your comments and you must identify this information as “confidential.” Any information marked as “confidential” will not be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469 , September 18, 2015, or access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf .

Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in the heading of this document, into the “Search” box and follow the prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500.

Yvonne Knight, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 2142, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-2133, [email protected] , with the subject line “MIDD Meetings Program for CDER”; or Christopher Egelebo, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 5340, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-8625, [email protected] , with the subject line “MIDD Meetings Program for CBER.”

FDA is announcing a request for information entitled “Identifying Priority Focus Areas for Future Guidance Development and Engagement with Interested Parties in Model-Informed Drug Development.” Information submitted in response to this notice will be used by CDER, including by its Quantitative Medicine Center of Excellence, and CBER to assist in identifying and prioritizing potential focus areas for future policy or guidance development and engagement with interested parties.

MIDD approaches integrate exposure-based biological and statistical models derived from nonclinical and clinical data sources in drug development and decision making. MIDD applications span the life cycle of new drug product development. MIDD approaches use a variety of quantitative methods ( e.g., population pharmacokinetic (popPK) modeling, exposure-response (E-R) modeling, physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, systems pharmacology/mechanistic modeling, disease progression modeling, drug-trial-disease modeling and simulation, artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) approaches) to help assess the risks and benefits of drug products, contribute to the evidentiary framework for efficacy and/or safety, and optimize dosing regimens for patients, among other applications. When successfully applied, MIDD approaches might reduce animal testing, improve clinical trial design and efficiency, inform identification of dosing regimens with improved benefit-risk profiles, increase the probability of regulatory success through synergetic engagement with interested parties, and optimize drug dosing/therapeutic individualization in the absence of dedicated trials.

Beginning with Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) VI, FDA began granting focused meetings as part of the MIDD Paired Meeting Pilot to: (1) provide a forum for regulatory interaction between drug developers and FDA on the application of MIDD approaches in specific drug development programs; and (2) provide ( print page 71376) an opportunity for FDA to provide advice regarding how particular MIDD approaches can be used in a specific drug development program. Other deliverables as part of PDUFA VI included increasing regulatory science and review capacity in MIDD approaches and convening multiple workshops to identify best practices for MIDD (topics including E-R, PBPK, disease progression modeling, and immunogenicity assessments). In addition, FDA published or revised multiple guidances on MIDD. As part of PDUFA VII, the MIDD Paired Meeting Program has been continued and this RFI is to elicit public input on future focus areas for advancing MIDD. More information on the MIDD Paired Meeting program can be found at https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/model-informed-drug-development-paired-meeting-program .

FDA is interested in detailed comments on the topics listed in this section below to identify and inform future priorities for MIDD-related policy, including guidance development and engagement with interested parties. The topics identified in this section are not meant to be exhaustive. FDA is also interested in any other pertinent information that interested parties would like to share related to guidance and enhancing MIDD-related interactions with FDA. FDA encourages interested parties to provide the specific rationale and basis for their comments, including any available supporting data and information.

Several quantitative approaches, such as popPK, E-R, and PBPK, are routinely employed in drug development and regulatory assessment. The Agency aims to identify areas within these approaches that would benefit from the development of additional policies or guidance on methodology and best practices. In addition, with this RFI, the Agency is seeking input to explore potential guidance needs and appropriately identify and prioritize potential topics for guidance development in all emerging MIDD approaches for drug and biological products, including but not limited to, AI/ML used in both drug design and evaluation and digital-twin technology.

MIDD approaches that leverage comprehensive information—including disease and patient population characteristics ( e.g., intrinsic and extrinsic factors), drug properties, placebo effects, nonclinical and clinical E-R relationships—are potent tools and can be utilized across all stages of the drug development life cycle to support decision making. This is particularly important for rare diseases and emerging therapeutic and prophylactic/preventative modalities where there may be practical and ethical challenges in conducting traditional drug development programs or where there is limited drug development experience. We seek input on the need to develop guidances that discuss considerations to facilitate MIDD methods development, application, uptake, and acceptance in specific therapeutic areas. Related topics include identification of opportunities for incorporation of real-world data, specific therapeutic modality considerations, and preclinical to clinical translations and to appropriately identify and prioritize potential topics in this area.

Building on the success of the MIDD Paired Meeting Program, FDA is interested in better understanding ways to facilitate discussion around MIDD approaches outside the MIDD Paired Meeting Program as part of regulatory meetings and regulatory submissions. This includes identifying what is currently working well and what are the barriers ( e.g., technical, regulatory) encountered while trying to interact with FDA on MIDD-related activities.

FDA continues to engage on MIDD approaches as part of external workshops with interested parties, including workshops described and completed under PDUFA VI. FDA seeks to identify and prioritize potential topics and better ways for communication and engagement with interested parties.

Dated: August 28, 2024.

Lauren K. Roth,

Associate Commissioner for Policy.

[ FR Doc. 2024-19712 Filed 8-30-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4164-01-P

Executive Orders

Reader Aids

Information.

About This Site
Legal Status
Accessibility
No Fear Act
Continuity Information

COMMENTS

Research Summary
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.
How to Write a Summary
Learn how to write a summary of a source in five easy steps, with examples and tips to help you avoid plagiarism and improve your writing skills.
How To Write A Research Summary
A well curated research summary represents you and your skills as knowledgeable about the information written in the research paper. To generate a concise, accurate, and a good research summary, you must stay attentive to the goals and purpose of a research summary.
How to Summarize a Paper: Step-by-Step Guide
A research paper summary is a short overview of a research paper. Generally, a research paper summary is about 300-400 words long, though with longer papers, they're usually no more than 10 percent the length of the original paper. Research paper summaries play an important role in academia.
Research Summary: What Is It & How To Write One
A research summary is a piece of writing that summarizes the research of a specific topic into bite-size easy-to-read and comprehend articles. The primary goal is to give the reader a detailed outline of the key findings of a research. It is an unavoidable requirement in colleges and universities. To write a good research summary, you must ...
Research Paper Summary: How to Write a Summary of a Research Paper
What is a research summary and why is it important? A research article summary is a concise and comprehensive overview of a research paper. A summary briefly restates the purpose, methods, findings, conclusions, and relevance of a study, faithfully recapitulating the major points of the work.
Writing a Summary
Writing a Summary - Explanation & Examples. Published by Alvin Nicolas at October 17th, 2023 , Revised On October 17, 2023. In a world bombarded with vast amounts of information, condensing and presenting data in a digestible format becomes invaluable. Enter summaries.
Research Summary: What is it & how to write one
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.
How to Write a Research Paper Summary
Understanding how to summarize a research paper is a critical skill to develop as a researcher. This article illustrates 3 steps to write a summary of findings in research and key mistakes to avoid to create a masterful research paper summary. Read more!
How to write a research summary
A research summary is a concise overview of a research paper or project. It is designed to provide the reader with essential research insights without reading the entire document.
Research Summary- Structure, Examples, and Writing tips
A research summary is a type of paper designed to provide a brief overview of a given study - typically, an article from a peer-reviewed academic journal. It is a frequent type of task encountered in US colleges and universities, both in humanitarian and exact sciences, which is due to how important it is to teach students to properly interact ...
PDF Microsoft Word
How to Summarize a Research Article. Research articles use a standard format to clearly communicate information about an experiment. A research article usually has seven major sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Method, Results, Discussion, and References. Determine your focus. The first thing you should do is to decide why you need to ...
How to Write an Abstract
An abstract is a short summary of a longer work (such as a thesis, dissertation or research paper). The abstract concisely reports the aims and outcomes of your research, so that readers know exactly what your paper is about.
Easy Ways to Write a Summary of a Research Paper: 11 Steps
Writing a summary of an academic research paper is an important skill, and it shows that you understand all of the relevant information presented to you. However, writing a summary can be tough, since it requires you to be completely objective and keep any analysis or criticisms to yourself. By keeping your goal in mind as you read the paper and focusing on the key points, you can write a ...
Effective Summary For Research Paper: How To Write
Writing an effective summary for a research paper will help in easily understanding all the main points of the paper. Check the 10 best tips.
Research Summary: Samples, Examples, And Steps To Write
A research summary is a kind of paper aimed to give a short analysis of a given study. In most cases, it comes from academic journals and is known to be a common task for American students. They often need to write a research paper despite the type of educational establishment and the subject.
What is a Summary? Guide on Definition, Types, and Examples
An In-depth Guide on Definition, Types, and Examples. Understanding what a summary contains is fundamental to academic success. It represents a concise restatement of an argument, paper, or lecture's main points, facilitating better understanding, and the ability to highlight connections between concepts. The term 'summary' itself, alongside ...
12 Best Tools For Perfect Research Summary Writing
The summary of a research paper should include a brief description of the paper's purpose. It should state the paper's thesis statement and briefly describe each of the main points of the paper. 7. Use Keywords To Introduce The Report. When introducing the summary of a research paper, use keywords familiar to the reader.
How To Write an Executive Summary for a Research Paper (With ...
Discover the importance of executive summaries for research papers, along with a series of helpful steps you can follow to create an effective summary document.
Writing a Research Paper Conclusion
The conclusion of a research paper restates the research problem, summarizes your arguments or findings, and discusses the implications.
Executive Summary
Offers detailed guidance on how to develop, organize, and write a college-level research paper in the social and behavioral sciences.
In a nutshell: how to write a lay summary
A lay summary, or impact statement, is a very efficient way of conveying the essence of your article briefly and clearly. Fundamentally, what you're aiming to produce is a short paragraph outlining the article content, aimed at non-specialists in the field and written in a way that they can easily understand. This element differentiates it ...
Article Summarizer
Extract key information from research papers with Scholarcy's AI article summarizer.
How to Summarize A Research Paper Using AI: Easy Academic Mastery
The summary will highlight key points, main arguments, and important findings from the research paper. Step 5: Review and Refine Once the summary is generated, review it to ensure that it captures the essence of the research paper accurately.
Benefits, barriers and recommendations for youth engagement in health
Background Youth engagement refers to the collaboration between researchers and youth to produce research. Youth engagement in health research has been shown to inform effective interventions aimed at improving health outcomes. However, limited evidence has identified promising practices to meaningfully engage youth. This synthesis aims to describe youth engagement approaches, frameworks, and ...
AI Summarizer
Summarize long texts, documents, articles and papers in 1 click with Scribbr's free summarizer tool. Get the most important information quickly and easily with the AI summarizer.
GPT-fabricated scientific papers on Google Scholar: Key features
Academic journals, archives, and repositories are seeing an increasing number of questionable research papers clearly produced using generative AI. They are often created with widely available, general-purpose AI applications, most likely ChatGPT, and mimic scientific writing. Google Scholar easily locates and lists these questionable papers alongside reputable, quality-controlled research.
Sensorimotor control of robots mediated by electrophysiological ...
The paper highlights two key innovations: first, a vibration- and electromagnetic interference-shielded mycelium electrical interface that allows for stable, long-term electrophysiological bioelectric recordings during untethered, mobile operation; second, a control architecture for robots inspired by neural central pattern generators ...
Federal Register :: Identifying Priority Focus Areas for Future
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Notice; request for Information. SUMMARY: The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) within the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) are announcing a request for information (RFI) for advancing model-informed drug development (MIDD).

Research Summary – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Summary

Structure of Research Summary

How to Write Research Summary

Example of Research Summary

Purpose of Research Summary

Characteristics of Research Summary

When to write Research Summary

Advantages of Research Summary

Limitations of Research Summary

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

You may also like

Research Report – Example, Writing Guide and...

Research Objectives – Types, Examples and...

Research Results Section – Writing Guide and...

Context of the Study – Writing Guide and Examples

Thesis – Structure, Example and Writing Guide

Dissertation – Format, Example and Template

How To Write A Research Summary

What is a Research Summary?

Research summary or Abstract. What’s the Difference?

Getting Started with a Research Summary

How to Structure Your Research Summary

Introduction

Methodology

Tips for Writing a Research Summary

1. Read the parent paper thoroughly

2. Identify the key elements in different sections

Discussion/Conclusion

3. Prepare the first draft

4. Include visuals

5. Double check for plagiarism

6. Religiously follow the word count limit

7. Proofread your research summary multiple times

8. Watch while you write

9. Ask a friend/colleague to help

You might also like

Consensus GPT vs. SciSpace GPT: Choose the Best GPT for Research

Literature Review and Theoretical Framework: Understanding the Differences

Types of Essays in Academic Writing - Quick Guide (2024)

Introduction

What is a Research Summary?

Research Summary or Abstract: What’s The Difference?

What is an Abstract?

What is a Summary?

What Is The Difference Between an Abstract and a Summary?

Getting Started with a Research Summary

How to Structure Your Research Summary

Research Summary Example 1

Research Summary Example 2

Research Questions: Definitions, Types + [Examples]

How to Write An Abstract For Research Papers: Tips & Examples

The McNamara Fallacy: How Researchers Can Detect and to Avoid it.

Action Research: What it is, Stages & Examples

Formplus - For Seamless Data Collection

Writing a Summary – Explanation & Examples

Importance of Summaries

Why Do We Write Summaries?

Makes Important Things Easy to Remember

Simplification of Complex Topics

Aid in Researching and Understanding Diverse Sources

Condensing Information for Presentation or Sharing

Characteristics of a Good Summary

Conciseness

Objectivity

Steps of Writing a Summary

Reading Actively

Identifying the Main Idea

List Key Supporting Points

Draft the Summary

The research done by our experts have:

Dos and Don’ts of Summarising Key Points

Use your Own Words

Attribute Sources Properly

Ensure Accuracy of the Summarised Content

Avoid Copy-Pasting Chunks of Original Content

Do not Inject your Personal Opinion

Do not Omit Crucial Information

Examples of Summaries