NEWS

Journal articles with extenders receive more than twice as many views

Analysis of Clinical Trial Protocols and Plain Language Summaries
of Publications with extenders finds 144% higher readership

An analysis of article views in Taylor & Francis medical journals has revealed that ‘extenders’ can significantly increase readership. Plain Language Summaries of Publications and Clinical Trial Protocols with extenders attracted 144% higher views than those without these supplemental resources.

Extenders, a term used in medical publishing for digital tools that present the research in an alternative format, can include infographics, graphical abstracts, video abstracts, supplementary podcasts and translations. Extenders are often designed to highlight the practical implications of the research for healthcare providers and also to make the findings more accessible for non-specialists, including patients and their caregivers.

To assess the readership impact of extenders, Taylor & Francis editorial staff identified 21 Plain Language Summaries of Publications (PLSPs) and 19 Clinical Trial Protocols (CTPs) articles with extenders, published in nine Expert Medicine journals between January 1, 2023 and January 16, 2025. The mean views of these articles were compared with the remaining articles without extenders published during the same period (146 PLSPs and 71 CTPs).

• PLSPs with extenders averaged 3,985 views, which was 154% higher than the 1,568 views received by PLSPs without extenders.
• CTPs with extenders averaged 4,602 views, 126% higher than the 2,029 views of CTPs without extenders.
• The weighted average across both article types showed a 144% increase in views.

“While our dataset concentrated on just nine journals over a two-year period, the clear trend we’ve identified strongly indicates that extenders directly impacted the views of those articles,” said Sam Cavana, Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis and one of the leads of the research. “It would be fascinating to see whether that effect is replicated across other article types and to explore if it’s possible to say which extenders increase views the most.”

Cavana added: “We can’t be certain who the additional readers of articles with extenders are, whether they are primarily fellow researchers, policy makers, members of the public or a mix. So, another area for further research could be investigating whether higher views of articles with extenders translates to increased research citations or alternative measures of impact, such as shares on social media.”

Rachel Jenkins, Head of Plain Language Summaries at Taylor & Francis and co-lead of the research, said: “Researchers often produce extenders to make their findings accessible to a wider group of people but it was encouraging to find that they can have such an impact on readership of the associated article too. If research groups are considering including extenders in their publication plan this is another very good reason to do so.”

Further details about Plain Language Summaries of Publications and Clinical Trial Protocols can be found on the Taylor & Francis Author Services website.

Associated poster: Evidence demonstrating how extenders increase the number of views of publications