The adapted version of the research article serves a dual purpose: not only does it offer to readers from an academic environment (students, researchers, teachers, and so on) easier reading than the journal article, but also it informs the readership of your website in a pleasant and comprehensible reading.
Your adapted version should integrate the content of your website by topic/theme and by reflecting the interests of your readers while keeping its focus on the findings reported in the original article. Your version (call it a ‘summary’) should be a compromise between the academic version and a news report or brief story for the popular audience, with respect to the information provided, language, style, and rigor, without affecting the logic and flow of the arguments and maintaining the clarity of the exposition.
- Premises
Writing a summary requires you to read the full text of the paper to be summarized. Reading only the abstract and other discussions about the paper on the internet does not guarantee that your summary will cover the main points, ideas, arguments, and findings of the paper, or that you will reconstruct properly its linkage of the arguments. It is recommended that you first read the paper before writing anything in order to crystallize a general idea of what is presented and how should it be reflected in your summary; you may do a sketch after this first reading. Then you can elaborate it by reading each section in succession. It is not wise to read only a section for the first time and then summarize it, as you should have a holistic vision about both the paper and the general context related to the niche of your site and your audience.
Writing it with the help of AI is not recommended. A summary requires personal choices and decisions made from the perspective of your own expertise and cultural profile. Doing it with AI will result in applying their choices (which you are not aware of despite your instructions), not to mention that the adjustments you will have to make to their output can be executed only against the full text.
The expertise of the author of the summary is important with respect to the quality of the outcome. Familiarity with the field of the paper, at least at a general-culture level, is recommended.
- Modify the title if necessary
You may keep the original title if it is straightforward for a topic in the non-academic realm, but you may also change it to make it more appealing or adapted to your niche and interests. Changing it is recommended for long titles with technical/specialized terms.
- Authorship
The byline of the summary should contain the name of its creator. Do not write the name(s) of the author(s) of the original article in the byline. Doing so will credit them with that content, which does not reflect the reality and represents a copyright infringement. You will have the chance to cite their names in the content of the summary as well as in its references list.
- Length
Length should be kept at a reasonable word count, for the readers not to lose interest or abandon the reading due to time spent, while touching the key points and findings of the original paper. A typical length would be 1,000-2,000 words, depending of course on the topic and the length of the original paper. Some papers cannot be summarized under a certain length without losing essential points or arguments. In our practice, summaries have been written between 1,200 and 3,500 words.
- Extend the context in the introduction
Usually the introduction of the original article presents the context and framework of the current study, containing the state of the research with regard to the topic, prior research, what gaps it fills, and what its significance is for applications and for further research. You may condense this context in your summary by using both the abstract and the introduction, while focusing on applications; however, it is recommended to extend it a bit beyond the academic framework by making connections with other topics of interest in your niche and how the research contributes or may contribute to them.
- Start with the big idea
Begin by identifying the central question the paper tries to answer or the main conclusion it reaches. This is often found in the abstract or conclusion, but you should restate it in plain language. Instead of opening with background theory or prior research (which are recommended to be limited in the summary), explain what the study is about and why anyone outside the academic zone should care. A strong opening frames the research as a story with a clear purpose.
Popular audiences want answers first. Move the main findings and conclusions to the beginning by a brief mention, even if they appear near the end of the original paper. Background information should appear only after readers understand why the topic matters, and only insofar as it helps clarify the story.
- Ditch the jargon (adapt or translate it)
Academic writing relies heavily on specialized terminology and technicalities that can alienate general readers. As you rewrite, replace technical terms with familiar words whenever possible.
When a technical term is essential and necessary to use, define it quickly and simply, using concrete language or an example. Such incomplete and imperfect definitions should be conceived in the form genus – species or genus – species – subspecies, ignoring differentia where it is too technical or specialized. Once you try to provide a more precise definition, you might end up finding it necessary to define subsequent technical terms, which will complicate the text and its comprehension more than if ignored.
You may replace the missing (technical) differentia part of the definition with applications of the notion or other concrete instances falling within that concept; this addition contributes to a conceptual systematic understanding.
One goal is comprehension relative to the whole story, not precision at the expense of clarity. Another goal is the rigorousness of reference and conceptual linkage: The readers should know what concept the term refers to in the story and how it relates with other concepts. Overall, you should focus on extensionality more than intensionality.
Example: A ‘Linear congruential generator’ [the term to be defined] is an algorithm [genus] that yields a uniform and unpredictable sequence of numbers (called pseudo-random) [species], formed recursively by the remainders of a linear expression divided by a fixed number (the modulus) [subspecies]. It is applied in computer simulations, gaming, statistics, etc. [applications]. In this form, the definition avoids mentioning the concrete equation of recurrence, and this lack is justified by the applications addition.
- Abandon the academic structure
Academic papers follow a rigid format (abstract, literature review, methods, results, discussion) that does not work for general readers and does not fit the structure of a summary, which should look more like a blog article than a sketched or reduced replica of the original paper. Do not summarize section by section, preserving the initial structure. Instead, reorganize the content around a narrative flow: context → problem → discovery → significance. You are translating ideas in common language, not just sketching by preserving the original layout.
Rearranging or modifying structure should follow your communication targets and adaptation to your audience and reflect your creative fingerprint.
The order in which research was conducted is often not the best order for explanation. Feel free to rearrange ideas so each paragraph builds naturally on the last, prioritizing clarity and reader interest over fidelity to the original sequence.
- Focus on the “why,” not the “how”
Most popular audiences don’t need to know detailed methodologies, statistical models, or experimental protocols. Instead, emphasize the motivation behind the study and what problem it addresses. If methods are relevant, summarize them at a general level (e.g., “The researchers analyzed data from thousands of people”) without procedural detail, except the case when those details are crucial for the presented arguments.
- Use relatable examples or analogies
Abstract concepts become memorable when tied to everyday experiences. Analogies, metaphors, or short scenarios help readers intuitively grasp what the findings mean.
For example, you might compare a complex system to a household routine or a familiar technology. This step turns specialized information into understanding.
- Highlight the main findings only
Academic papers often report many results, but a popular summary should focus on the most important ones. Identify the two to four findings that directly support the main message. Explain what changed, what was surprising, or what confirmed expectations; avoid overwhelming readers with numbers or marginal effects. In general, it is almost impossible to touch on all the subtopics of a paper, its arguments and results, in a limited-length summary, especially when adapted in non-academic language. Be ready to cut off from the original text. This is not an easy task at all, as you have to evaluate first against length what is worth touching on and what is really important.
- Mention the authors as part of your story
Since the authors of the research do not show in the byline of the summary, you have to mention their names in the text whenever necessary, for making clear that they are credited with the research and the topic of your story. This mention should naturally take place first in your introduction, when you start talking about their research. The name mention should be accompanied by profession/role/title and institution where they are affiliated (e.g. “[First name 1] [Second name 1], professor at the University of …, and [First name 2] [Second name 2], medical doctor at …Clinic, conducted a study in 2023, investigating…]”.
The authors and their research are part of your story and should be credited with each claim, argument, and result presented in your summary. This is why you should refer to them in active voice (by their names or “the authors” / “the researchers” / “the investigators” / etc.) as the subject of any sentence predicating what has been done in that research, especially with regard to the methods applied. (e.g. “The authors of the study used multiple linear regression analysis to predict…” instead of “By multiple linear regression, it was predicted …”).
- Disclaim about limits
Responsible science communication includes acknowledging uncertainty. Briefly explain the study’s main limitations in accessible terms (such as sample size, scope, or context)without undermining the work. Present them from the original authors’ perspective, as they explain in the paper. This builds trust with readers and prevents overgeneralization or hype. However, do not overstress the limitations, at that could cost you space that should be dedicated to the main ideas, arguments, methodology, and findings.
Another kind of disclaimer concerns your cut-offs. If there are mentions in your summary of content that was not summarized due to length restriction, or there are not but you feel that some ignored content has the same nature or status as that summarized, or it is marginal to the main findings, you should inform the readers about your decision to ignore that content. You can do that by a short in-text note (e.g., “The alternatives to this method are not discussed in this summary.”)
- Keep the tone human and curious
Write as much as possible in a conversational style that invites curiosity rather than asserting authority. Use active voice, shorter sentences, and natural phrasing. Imagine explaining the research to a smart friend who is interested but not an expert. This tone helps readers stay engaged and receptive.
Such a friendly tone and style, however, should not alter the academic dimension of the paper, which must be preserved. Whatever audience you intend to please with your article, never forget that the main goal is to present research results; showing how the researchers arrived at them assumes referring to their academic treatment of the topic. You are not discussing that topic for the general audience (except perhaps to some extent in the introduction and conclusion), but presenting what has been found by academic methods.
- End with implications or next steps
Conclude by zooming out again. Explain what the findings might mean for everyday life, public policy, future research, or societal debates.
If applicable, mention what questions remain unanswered or what researchers plan to study next. This gives readers a sense of momentum and relevance beyond the paper itself. Include your own thoughts on the conclusions and relate them to the niche of your site.
- Make headings friendly and appealing
Replace neutral specialized academic headings with engaging, reader-centered ones. For example, instead of “Results,” use “What the researchers found” or “Does this actually work?” This signals relevance and helps readers navigate throughout the article without losing interest and confidence that they won’t be dragged through mere academic content in tough terminology.
- Compress or remove the literature review
Academic papers spend substantial space positioning the work within existing literature on the topic being investigated. For popular summaries, this should be reduced just enough not to lose the significance of the work and not to break any argumentative chain that relies on past research. Depending on the research and its topic, the background-research part can even be reduced to a few sentences explaining what was previously unknown or debated, but it also can be summarized in much more space. Readers don’t need a map of the field, but are interested more in what gap this study fills.
- Integrate methods into the story
Rather than isolating methods in their own section, weave them into the narrative where they matter. For example, briefly explain how researchers reached a finding at the moment it is introduced. This keeps the flow intact and prevents methodological detail from stalling momentum.
- Use shorter, self-contained sections
Popular writing benefits from clear breaks and modular sections. Keep paragraphs short and focused, with each section delivering a single idea. This makes the piece easier to skim and more accessible on digital platforms.
- End with synthesis, not summary
Academic articles often conclude by restating results. A popular version should instead synthesize – connecting findings back to the opening problem and broader context. The ending should feel like a resolution, not a recap.
- Citations
In-text citations are not mandatory in the summary; however, a references list at the end is, as you must cite the original article being summarized. Since it would be unaesthetic to have in this list only one entry, you should add a few more, by citing papers that are referenced in the original article. You may choose the most relevant ones for your text, by picking them from the original article. It is not recommended to have a long list of references in the summary and it is recommended to highlight the original article in the list by a distinctive formatting (like bold, for instance), for the readers to know that it is the main reference as the article being summarized.
You may use whatever academic style you prefer for formatting your citations (APA, Chicago, etc.).
- Other formatting
You may use whatever formatting and layout you prefer for your summary, for being in tone with the content of your site and have an appealing design. You may insert images, internal and external links, snippets from other pages, or any kind of prompts. Yet it is recommended not to make it look like a link farm and especially to avoid irrelevant or non-contextual links that would leave an impression not much associated with popular-science posts.
***********************************************************************************
The user-friendly summarized versions of journal articles are a form of science journalism with great SEO potential for your site, which aligns with the E-E-A-T principle and signals search engines (including AI) trustworthy sources connected with authoritative sites. There is also the possibility that Google Scholar will pick your summary for their search returns, providing it meets their requirements. Once such a summary is posted on your site, you may reach out to any publication citing or discussing the original journal article to make connections that will enhance your SEO performance. Check these articles to find more about the SEO aspects of academic summarizing:
https://www.magazine.philscience.org/2025/01/17/citation-based-academic-link-building/
https://www.magazine.philscience.org/2025/09/13/internal-science-journalism-as-effective-seo-method/