OBJECTIVES: In an attempt to help non-medical or non-scientific populations understand complex clinical information, several initiatives (e.g., the European Union Clinical Trials Regulation) have been undertaken to encourage the development of plain language summaries (PLS) of clinical articles in medical journals. We assessed whether medical journals have yet adopted PLS in 2 therapeutic areas with high patient burden: oncology and dermatology.

METHODS: We identified the 50 journals with the highest (HR) and the lowest (LR) ranking in 2020 in both therapeutic areas using the SCImago Journal Rank indicator. We then reviewed the journal websites (guidance to authors) and when needed, the editor’s website. We only reviewed websites written in English, collecting all information related to PLS and inclusive language.

RESULTS: A website with guidance to authors in English was available for most HR journals (oncology: 50/50; dermatology: 48/50) but for ≤66% of LR journals (oncology: 25/50; dermatology: 32/50). Allowed PLS are common among HR oncology (10/50) and dermatology (29/48) journals but not among LR journals (oncology: 1/25; dermatology: 3/32). For journals allowing PLS, its submission is mandatory in 4 (oncology: 3/11; dermatology: 1/32). Only one journal (oncology-related) requires patients’ involvement in the development of the PLS. Among those editors with ≥4 reviewed journals, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. have the highest rate of PLS (oncology: 4/5; dermatology: 14/14). Request for inclusive language is more common than PLS in oncology (HR: 15/50; LR:2/25) but not in dermatology (HR: 10/48; LR: 2/32).

CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increased patient involvement in the biomedical oncology and dermatology research, and several PLS initiatives, very few journals have implemented them. It remains to be seen whether the initiative for medical journals to target non-medical and non-scientific audiences increases in the near future and whether development of PLS will benefit from patient involvement.