As its name suggests, a graphical abstract is a single, self-contained visual that summarises the key elements of a research article or project. Think of it as a standalone illustration that captures your study’s objectives, methodology, and main findings immediately, without requiring readers to dive into the full text. Unlike traditional figures pulled from your manuscript, a graphical abstract should be designed to deliver a key message. You thus need to create a new illustration in its own right and select the information you want to share.

The purpose of this visual representation is communication: whether to catch the attention on a journal website, to share your research on social media, or to facilitate quick literature reviews.

Key characteristics include:

• Visual-first approach: combines images, icons, and minimal text.
• Self-contained: tells a complete story without additional context.
• Audience-aware: can target fellow researchers, practitioners, policymakers, or the general public.
• Multi-purpose: works across journals, social media, presentations, and funding applications.

Many scientific journals are now offering it as an optional or mandatory component. This reflects a broader shift toward making research more accessible and digestible in our visually driven digital landscape.

Why invest time in creating one?

This type of visual summary may attract more readers to your study, as some studies suggest.

For example, a 2023 study published in Translational Behavioral Medicine, indicates that graphical abstracts increase traffic to scientific text abstracts and help authors achieve higher Altmetric attention scores — a key indicator of online visibility and engagement across social media platforms.

Beyond academia, graphical abstracts offer practical value for R&D teams and innovation projects. They facilitate internal knowledge sharing across departments, effective communication with non-technical stakeholders, and visibility for patent applications and funding proposals.

The bottom line? Graphical abstracts are a great way of expanding your research’s reach and accessibility.

3 rules to design effective graphical abstracts

Creating a successful graphical abstract requires more than aesthetic sensibility; it demands strategic thinking about information hierarchy and audience needs. Here are the core principles backed by research.

Select your message and keep only the necessary information

According to Antoine de Saint-Exupéry: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away”. This is especially true for graphical abstracts! It is of utmost importance to avoid overloading your illustration with text or images. As such, the first step consists in selecting the information that will appear in your graphical abstract. Ask yourself the following question: “What takeaway message should my readers remember?” Indeed, the target audience needs to quickly get an overview of the objectives and key results of your research work. Resist the temptation to include everything: overloading defeats the purpose.

While we process images faster, our understanding improves when text reinforces visual information. Do not hesitate to highlight key figures or keywords from your study. But make sure you find the right balance between written information and visual elements to create an attractive and self-standing graphical abstract.

A graphical abstract usually includes a clear title, the study’s objectives, a summary of the key results, the authors’ names, and the institution’s logo. Remember to include the complete reference of the scientific article in your graphical abstract once it is published: title, journal, date, Digital Object Identifier (DOI). It is not necessarily interesting (or even possible) to include a Methods section, unless it is relevant in the context of your work.

Pay attention to design

Mastering the rules of graphic design and composition is vital to creating successful illustrations. Unfortunately, visual hierarchy and contrast are often underused in scientific illustrations. Here are basic principles to follow.

After defining your message, you need to structure the information included in the illustration. Ask yourself the following questions: “What are the most important elements? In which order must readers receive the information?” You will then be able to emphasise the key elements, those that need to stand out or to be seen first. There are no specific rules for layout, but your graphical abstract must comply with reading directions: from top to bottom and left to right. White space (or negative space) will also be vital to space out the content of your graphical abstract. Do not underestimate these empty areas, which increase readability and help your readers to grasp the content.

Pay attention to the size and colour of elements. You may increase or decrease the size of text or images, but beware of the final size of each element; they must remain legible even when reduced. You should use contrasting colours, readable fonts, and of course, include shapes or symbols (arrows, numbers, icons) to guide your readers’ eyes. Avoid relying solely on colour to convey information, as people with colour-blindness may miss the main message of your illustration.

Keep in mind your target audience

Before you start creating your illustration, ask yourself: who are you trying to reach? A graphical abstract intended for fellow specialists can include more technical terminology and detailed methodology, while one aimed at policymakers or industry partners should focus on practical implications and real-world applications. For interdisciplinary audiences—common in innovation ecosystems—strike a balance by explaining key concepts without oversimplifying.

Research communications officers and R&D managers should consider creating multiple versions of the same graphical abstract, each tailored to specific stakeholder groups. This targeted approach ensures your message resonates with each audience, whether they are reading your work in a scientific journal, on LinkedIn, or reviewing it in a funding proposal. The most effective graphical abstracts are not just visually appealing—they speak directly to their intended readers’ needs and interests.

Want to master crafting a graphical abstract?
Check our program “Create a graphical abstract”

From a research paper to a visual story: a step-by-step approach

Creating your graphical abstract for a research paper does not need to be daunting. We suggest you follow these practical steps.

1. Define your core message: before opening any design software, answer this question: “If my audience remembers only one thing, what should it be?” This becomes your north star throughout the design process.

2. Check format requirements: when submitting to a scientific journal, do not forget to read the journal guidelines (e.g. content, figure types, format, size, symbols). See, for example, Elsevier graphical abstract guidelines. Furthermore, if you want to publish it easily on social networks, choose a compatible format (for example, 1200 X 627 pixels for LinkedIn).

3. List all essential elements: title, images, diagrams, icons, concise texts, key data, …

4. Sketch before you design: try different information flows and organisation without getting lost in design details.

5. Use design tools such as Canva, Microsoft PowerPoint, or BioRender (icons and templates related to life sciences research) to help you craft an attractive illustration.

6. Get feedback early: before finalising, share drafts with colleagues—ideally including your target audience. A fresh perspective often catches unclear elements you have overlooked.

Creating your first graphical abstract may require an investment, but the payoff extends beyond a single publication. The skills you develop creating graphical abstracts—distilling complex information, visual thinking, audience awareness—transfer broadly to other communication contexts. Moreover, this type of visual representation is not just for journal submission. We thus encourage you to use it in different contexts:
• in conference presentations, to deliver a take-home message
• on research group websites
• in funding applications
• for internal progress reports
• as social media content across multiple platforms

If your graphical abstract helps one additional reader understand and value your work, it has succeeded. In an era where attention is scarce and information abundant, that is an advantage worth pursuing.

Get premium training with us
Check our program “Create a graphical abstract”

The story behind narrative CVs

In December 2012, journal editors and publishers met at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology. Their agenda: to curb the use of journal-based metrics in funding and hiring applications and find better ways to assess research. Thus, was born the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). This list of recommendations began to disrupt the way research output was evaluated by funding agencies and academic institutions. In 2025, 26,433 individuals and organizations in 166 countries have signed DORA.

In this area, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) has set a precedent. In 2021, the main public funding agency in the United-Kingdom established its Résumé for Research and Innovation. This narrative CV is based on the Royal Society’s Résumé for Researchers (R4R) originally developed in collaboration with DORA. The model is now widely adopted by both national and international partners committed “to exploring a shared approach towards a narrative CV” for applications.

Adopting narrative CVs for funding

“Our main job as a funder is to make sure the best science gets funded, and how these decisions are made is critical” states Sean Sapcariu, Programme Manager at the Luxembourg National Research Fund (FNR). Likewise, the FNR is a leading advocate for the use of narrative CVs and implemented this format in all its funding programmes in 2021.

Many more organizations across Europe are currently trying out narrative CV models (e.g. NWO – Netherlands organization for scientific research, DFG – German research foundation, ERC – European research council, FNSNF – Swiss National Science Foundation) and others are sure to follow.

This new CV format is thus under way to improve practices in research assessment – and for the better.

Why narrative CVs are transforming research evaluation

A more qualitative view of a researcher contribution

“When we talk to scientists and ask about their recent achievements, it shouldn’t be that they published two articles in Nature, but rather the nice science they have done and their contributions to the community and broader public” states Marc Schiltz, the Secretary General of the FNR. The worth of a researcher cannot be judged solely through bullet lists detailing their publications. Narrative CVs focus on quality over quantity and limit the use of journal-based metrics. They may even omit publication lists altogether.

What do narrative CVs focus on instead? Simply put, the value of scientific contributions and achievements both in the research world and in society. Narrative résumés allow applicants to be more fairly evaluated by making way for a more holistic view of the research profession. “I am glad to see that this new evaluation system takes into consideration a wider range of competencies. For example, it was rather difficult for researchers to highlight public engagement activities until now” said Alexia Youknovsky, our CEO, in her interview for Times Higher Education.

A broader recognition of scientific profiles

In a feedback survey from Alzheimer’s research UK, 87% of respondents thought the narrative CV gave them a better opportunity to showcase broader skills and experience. Indeed, narrative CVs recognize and reward many worthy aspects of research which may otherwise be overlooked: teaching and mentoring, project management, peer review, open science contributions, international or interdisciplinary collaborations, dissemination activities, industrial partnerships, organization of scientific events, etc.

Moreover, unlike conventional application formats, narrative CVs foster diversity and promote gender equality in research and funding processes. They offer a more flexible and humane framework in which there is room for different professional and life trajectories. Personal statements make it possible to explain career changes or breaks away from research for a number of legitimate reasons (e.g. positions in industry, volunteering, family responsibilities, sick leave).

The anatomy of a narrative CV

Most funding applications follow the R4R-like structure developed by UKRI for their narrative CVs, or a variant of the template.

Applicants are asked to summarise their contributions in 4 sections/modules:

• Generation of new knowledge, ideas, tools, methodologies
• Development of other individuals and research teams
• Involvement in the wider research and innovation community
• Impact beyond the scientific community for broader society

Each section should have up to 500 words, sometimes less.

In addition, applicants can highlight their research interests, motivations, and short- and long-term goals. “Unlike traditional CVs, this module allows researchers to show ‘who they are’ in addition to ‘what they did’,” explains Alexia Youknovsky. Scientists can show their personality by explaining why they pursued a carrier in research and what drives them.

How to write a compelling narrative CV

Writing a narrative CV is a great way to showcase your brand, namely your unique story, skills and goals. This format invites you to explain the context, impact, and significance of your work in your own words. Admittedly, this is not an easy task, and it might sound tricky, but here is our advice!

Tailor your approach

To begin with, we recommend tailoring the content of the narrative CV to your needs. Each application will be different, depending on the expectations of the funding organization and the stage in your career. Defining your central message will be key to link all the different accomplishments together. It will help your readers to better understand and remember your profile.

You do not need to have outstanding accomplishments in all four areas, highlight your strengths, evaluators assess the application as a whole. Moreover, do not ‘cram’ as much information as possible in the CV. For each section, focus on one or two striking examples to show your greatest achievements and results. Likewise, the examples listed in templates are non-exhaustive, you can include other relevant experiences in your application. However, do make sure that you provide enough information and evidence to support your statements.

Master the storytelling elements

It can be hard to identify and highlight invisible skills or daily tasks, yet they are hidden opportunities. Furthermore, you may be used to an impersonal type of writing and find it awkward to promote yourself. To overcome these issues and to clarify your ideas, you can have a conversation with a friend or colleague. Alexia Youknovsky recommends “spontaneously discussing the content of each section and then transcribing these thoughts in writing. Your statements will look more genuine and dynamic that way!”

Storytelling is a great way to stand out, to catch the attention of the reader, and to stick in their memory. Stories connect us to people, shape how they see us, and build trust. Like stories, the examples in your narrative CV may describe the following elements: setting (i.e. the context), characters (i.e. people involved), conflict (i.e. challenges), and resolution (i.e. solutions and outputs). In addition, “using vocabulary to describe emotions can also help you to create a connection with readers” explains Alexia Youknovsky.

Adopt a writing style with good flow and readability

A narrative CV calls for a first-person narrative. But to avoid appearing too self-centred, describe how you fit in your science community and beyond. You can balance your personal achievements by mentioning your team, collaborators and beneficiaries, while making sure your role is clear.

Check if the text is easy to read and to understand. Simple answers will be more powerful than complicated statements. Make sure your sentences are no longer than 15 words on average. Alternate short and longer sentences and use punctuation wisely to give rhythm to the text. Most of all, use the active voice as much as you can, as it is the most direct way of presenting information.

Final tips

Though it may seem trivial, reviewers may look at your LinkedIn profile, so make sure that you have an up-to-date profile in line with your narrative CV.

Though crafting a narrative CVs may require a lot of effort and are easier to draft for people with good English writing skills, this format is understandably gaining momentum. Narrative CVs valorise the diversity of ideas, skills and career paths in research. What makes you unique? These applications are a great opportunity to shed light on all your different contributions. Be proud of your work, show your worth and share your passion!

Want to get off to a good start?

Take our training course “Write a narrative CV”

Although many experts remain cautious about the use of AI in science communication, several successful examples already show its potential. Take Duncan Yellowlees, for example — a science communicator with dyslexia. He relies on Otter.ai to convert his speech into text before using ChatGPT to structure his ideas into blog posts. As he puts it: “I find writing long text really annoying, so I speak it into OtterAI, which converts the speech into text. It’s my thoughts, but I haven’t had to write them down.”

Another example comes from Professor David Markowitz at Michigan State University. His study found that AI-generated summaries of scientific articles were actually easier to understand than those written by the researchers themselves. The participants found the simpler texts easier to understand, which in turn boosted their trust in scientists.

Today, researchers who embrace AI are using it to perform all kinds of tasks: drafting articles and abstracts (ChatGPT), summarizing scientific papers (Perplexity, Semantic Scholar), creating images (Midjourney, ChatGPT image generator), and translating articles (ChatGPT). Some are even taking it a step further by translating video conferences with synchronized dubbing (HeyGen). A powerful tool which strengthens international collaboration among researchers.

Limits and risks of using AI in Science

Despite its potential, AI is not without flaws. AI tools do not possess a human understanding of the context. Instead, it predicts the next most likely word. This method can lead to mistakes, known as “hallucinations” — seemingly convincing but incorrect responses which are not grounded in real data. According to studies conducted in 2024, the hallucination rate in abstracts produced by ChatGPT-4o is around 40%, though it is still better than competing AI models which can reach a staggering 70% error rate.

AI-generated images, created with tools like Midjourney, are increasingly used in science communication. However, their lack of reliability remains a major concern. These illustrations can contain physically impossible elements and be misleading, even while appearing credible. For example, a DNA structure generated by an AI might look visually impressive but include serious structural errors, or a prokaryotic cell might be mistakenly depicted with a nucleus even though they have none in reality. Even animal depictions can go wrong: in an image generated by Midjourney, a hammerhead shark’s eyes are misplaced. They are in fact located at the far ends of its cephalofoil — the hammer-shaped extensions of its head — not above its mouth.

Another important issue concerns copyright. In most countries — including France and the United-States, at least for now — works created by generative AI without meaningful human creative input are not protected by copyright and fall within the public domain. While this has little impact on materials such as slides and posters, the lack of copyright protection can become a major problem for scientific journals and books, where legal protection is crucial.

Can AI really improve science communication?

AI is making the editing of scientific papers and popular science writing faster than ever. Models such as ChatGPT or Claude 3.7 Sonnet improve grammar and style, generate summaries, and adapt the content for different audiences. They help to spot inconsistencies and to write annotations. However, as AI does not always grasp the context, it can lead to oversimplified content and a loss of depth in scientific reasoning. Excessive automation could also impoverish the originality of texts and decrease critical thinking skills.

Tools like Perplexity and Semantic Scholar speed up information retrieval by analysing large datasets. They identify relevant articles and produce concise summaries. However, their algorithms can overlook important nuances or provide outdated or inaccurate data. A study published in March 2025 reports that 37% of Perplexity’s citations are erroneous, despite it being one of the best tools for these tasks. Therefore, thorough double-checking generated data is still 100% necessary.

The increasing use of AI in the field of science is expected to increase the amount of publications and research. However, quantity and quality don’t always align. The surge of articles could spread unreliable information, make it harder to detect biased data, and require stricter oversight of AI-generated content. Currently, regulations require researchers to disclose the use of AI in research, but compliance largely depends on the authors’ integrity. To address these challenges, new AI tools are already in the works to detect erroneous data and analyse auto-generated content.

Discover our Generative AI and Communication training program

AI and science communication in the near future

As we have seen, AI is transforming the way scientific knowledge is shared. In the coming years, it is expected to be increasingly used to develop interactive platforms that tailor scientific content for different audiences.

But AI isn’t just transforming communication — it’s reshaping science itself. Experts predict that by 2030, AI will become an essential component of both scientific research and dissemination. McKinsey forecasts report that across all sectors, employees believe AI could take over up to 30% of their tasks within a year — and scientific professions are no exception.

Dario Amodei, founder of Anthropic, views science, particularly biology, as a key area for AI application. He foresees that AI will eventually not only analyse data but also act as a “virtual biologist” capable of performing the repetitive tasks of researchers.

More than 40 researchers, including scientists from EPFL in Switzerland, are already hard at work building an AI-driven virtual cell — an advanced neural network designed to model the behavior of molecules, cells, and tissues in various states. This system could simulate biological functions, predict how the body reacts, and even help to design new treatments.

Another factor to consider is the rapid pace of progress in generative AI tools. A major evolution is already underway! At the end of 2024, Meta unveiled LCMs (Language-Concept Models), a new generation of language models that operate at the level of concepts rather than individual words. Unlike LLMs, such as ChatGPT, which generate text based on the probability of the next word, LCMs manipulate more complex units, juggling whole sentences and abstract ideas. They are better at capturing the meaning of information and at processing longer texts more effectively.
For now, these models are not publicly available, but it is only a matter of time. These technologies are expected to make scientific communication more accessible, personalized, and effective than ever before.

AI: a new ally for scientific and technical communicators

AI is already transforming scientific communication. It automates routine tasks, accelerates information retrieval, and facilitates writing. However, despite its advances, it must be thoughtfully used to ensure that the content produced remains reliable and relevant.

Experts believe that AI’s role in science communication will only grow stronger, but that critical reviews will remain essential. Striking the right balance between automation and human input will be key, as AI cannot replace intuition, creativity, or deep contextual understanding. With rigorous oversight and an awareness of its limitations, AI can become an invaluable ally, helping scientific communicators to save precious time while delivering high-quality content.

An opinion piece is a piece based on verifiable facts written in plain language that takes a stand on a topical or controversial issue by offering an expert perspective on issues shaking up society. There are many reasons to write an opinion piece. It can demystify research that is seen as complex by the general public. It can fill in the gaps when a scientific topic is still poorly understood. It can democratize ideas only shared within a small circle of privileged experts. It can convince those in power to make a change.

Its influence is palpable.  A 2018 study analyzing the impact of editorials circulated in the media shows that opinion pieces are an effective and cost-effective method of influencing their readers’ points of view.

An opinion piece comes in several formats:

• an op-ed: an editorial written by an expert invited by the newspaper’s editorial team, most commonly in mainstream media, to provide a clear-cut opinion on a topical issue,
• a column: an article presenting the facts, but in which the author takes a subjective view to contextualize the subject with his or her expertise,
• a perspective, comment, or correspondence published in an academic journal: a text aimed at an expert audience, presenting an argument based on the citation of scientific data.

Choosing the right format is essential. For example, an op-ed will give you the opportunity to issue an urgent call to action, while a regular column will strengthen your influence over the long term.

Four reasons to write an opinion piece

If you’re an expert or researcher who is hesitant to write an opinion piece, consider these four compelling reasons to do so.

Develop your communication skills

As a specialist, you’re best qualified to provide the information needed to understand your field of expertise. However, an opinion piece goes beyond imparting knowledge. In writing one, you’ll learn how to express complex ideas simply. This skill is valuable not only because it makes these ideas more accessible but also because it can help you see a broader perspective on your own work. The process will strengthen your writing skills and may give you some brilliant ideas!

David Spiegelhalter, head of the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication in Cambridge, has helped decipher the complex data associated with COVID-19 for the general public through a weekly column in The Guardian. In an article published in 2022, he shares the lessons he learned from his writing. “In the theatre of political combat, numbers are often weapons to beat opponents, but they should really be used to raise the quality of the debate,” he says.

Position yourself as an opinion leader

The media and their audiences consistently seek the opinion of reliable experts. Opinion columns, if relevant and carefully written, can establish you as a reference point among your peers, journalists, and the general public while highlighting your achievements and areas of expertise.

In her regular columns in Le Monde, French paleoclimatologist Valérie Masson-Delmotte draws on her expertise to take strong positions on current climate-related policies. These have helped make her an emblematic figure of climate leadership, very present in science and public opinion. In 2022, she was named one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people.

Bring niche and emerging concepts to a broader audience

Science grows iteratively as more knowledge is collected, but people’s opinions do not always grow as fast as the facts are gathered. Obsolete ideas can persist in people’s minds, even in academic circles. Writing opinion pieces can bring new perspectives that can reframe debates, both for the public and for your colleagues.“Honeybees becoming ‘pessimistic’ after stressful experiences; cuttlefish remembering the past and planning for the future… If scientific reports like these were accepted as evidence of consciousness [in the animal kingdom], then the implications would be substantial.” So say philosopher Kristin Andrews, economist Jonathan Birch, and environmental researcher Jeff Sebo in a perspective published in Science magazine. In this text, the experts put to their colleagues that “consciousness” within the animal realm needs a better definition if the field is to move forward in a unified way.

Change people’s hearts and minds

Scientists and experts are commonly taught that facts speak for themselves, and sharing an opinion may feel uneasy. But as Jon Favreau, chief speechwriter for former U.S. President Barack Obama, says, it’s the story that convinces. By presenting your ideas in an emotionally compelling narrative, your message will be more persuasive.

In the New York Times, Jehan Alladina, C. Corey Hardin, and Alexander Rabin, respected pulmonologists from the Universities of Massachusetts and Michigan, expressed their concerns about the policies of U.S. government agencies, which they say “censor” asthma studies. The healthcare professionals detail, with supporting evidence, why this method could be detrimental not only to research, but also to patients’ well-being. To support their argument, the researchers refer to the personal history of one of the authors, mentioning the work of his great-grandmother, which was suppressed in Soviet Russia under Joseph Stalin. “Nearly 80 years later, our work feels similarly imperilled,” the authors conclude. This narrative approach lends emotional and factual weight to their argument.

How to write a powerful opinion piece?

There are other reasons to consider putting your ideas on paper as part of an opinion piece. For instance, you might want to start a discussion in your field. Whatever your objective, when writing your article, follow these tips:

• Check that your argument is novel, current, and relevant.
• Organize your thoughts clearly and condense them as much as possible.
• Use simple language and avoid jargon.
• Give facts, but only the necessary ones.
• End with a conclusion that summarizes your position, and add a call to action or a thought-provoking statement.

An opinion piece, though short, can have a lasting impact. Whether its intent is to bring your research to a wider public, influence decision-makers, or inspire the general public, it is a powerful tool that can broaden your scientific influence.

Ready to get started? Check out our training course on writing opinion articles. This program, led by specialists, will guide you through the creation of an article, which could make you an opinion leader.

The specific requirements of scientific writing

Scientific writing brings its share of unique challenges. When you write, you need to stay aware of what your readers can or cannot understand. But you must also consider why your audience will read the document and why your work is important to them. Most often, you will write about very specific subjects. If your readers are other specialists in your field, they will have the necessary expertise to understand the topic and its jargon.

If, however, you are addressing the general public or scientists from other disciplines, you will need to adapt. Because these readers have a different level of knowledge. For example, when a scientist describes a method for cooling a turbine blade, a number of people will not understand what it’s about, why that’s important, nor the stakes involved.

What is the SWORD writing method?

The SWORD method for scientific writing is a guide. It will help you to write convincing scientific documents adapted to your audience. The principles of this method work for any type of document: a research article, a PhD thesis, a report, a funding application, a narrative CV or even a blog article.

To write a compelling document, it is important to ask yourself the right questions in the right order. For example, if you begin writing without preparing your plan beforehand, you will likely feel writer’s block or end up procrastinating. Furthermore, if your ideas are not structured, your content will be confusing and/or it will require a significant amount of time-consuming modifications and corrections.

Like any good recipe, you need to follow the SWORD method step by step. If you do, informing and convincing your readers, regardless of their level of knowledge, will become a piece of cake.

What are the three steps for the SWORD method?

« SWORD » is an acronym for the three steps that we recommend you follow when you write your scientific documents: Structure, WORding and Design.

1/ S for Structure

The first step consists in preparing the “Structure” of your message. Begin by defining the context of your research. Then, clarify your main message. In just a few words, your message sums up what your audience needs to remember after reading the document.

Finally, find a logical plan to organize your ideas and arguments. In some cases, you can have a lot of flexibility for some documents. For others, like scientific papers or study reports, you will need to follow the conventional structure: title, abstract, introduction, material & methods, results, discussion, conclusion and finally, references.

To build your plan, we advise you to use mind-mapping. This tool makes it possible to organise your ideas in a visual way. Rather than beginning with the top of the page and filling it with sentences or lists, place the main message in the centre. The different ideas will revolve around this main topic and you will not lose sight of the thread.

2/ WOR for language (Wording)

The second step, “language”, will focus on your writing skills. You should favour short and simple sentences. A simple sentence begins with a subject, followed by a verb and a complement, if possible in this order. Furthermore, simple sentences will only include a limited number of words. Ideally, a sentence should not be longer than 20 to 25 words. Where possible, try to write in the present tense.

Use a direct style: write in active voice instead of passive voice, use positive rather than negative turns of phrase. Also, avoid using subordinate clauses and relative pronouns. For example, « the demonstration which follows » can be replaced by « the following demonstration ». Finally, keep in mind that you may need to popularise your work. Adapt your written content to your audience and their level of understanding. If your readers have no knowledge whatsoever, avoid using jargon words or define them.

3/ D for layout (Design)

The third step, “design”, refers to the visual aspects of your communication. It is important to use scientific illustrations (e.g. tables, figures, schemas, graphs) but also photos or videos, to illustrate your work. A neat and beautiful layout and design will make your content more attractive and more importantly, it will make it easier to read. Keep in mind that white space is a key ingredient. For example, in the case of paragraphs, white space will allow readers to detach information, understand each block of ideas, and reflect on what they have just read. White space will also help readers to find the information they are seeking in the document and to pick and choose the elements which interest them.

Finally, do not overlook proofreading, to correct any grammar or spelling mistake, before you widely disseminate your document. A scientific document must be rigorous in both form and substance. Several methodical proofreading sessions will generally be necessary to produce quality content.

Using the SWORD method

Start to write a few weeks, or at least a few days before the deadline, even in the case of a short article. That way you will have time to reflect on the content and carefully correct the text. Never send a document you have just finished to your colleagues. Let it rest for at least one night, to read it again with a fresh mind the next day. Patience is a virtue, and slow and steady wins the race!

Improve visual appeal

Above all, a science poster must be attractive if you hope to achieve these objectives. Contrary to a spoken presentation, during which the audience is relatively captivated, reading a poster is not imposed. Potential readers are free to roam and stop in front of any poster they choose. All the efforts invested in making it will have been for nothing if you can’t immediately catch their attention.

During science poster sessions, competition with your fellow poster-makers is tough. To stand out, a poster should make people curious and catch their eye. As a matter of fact, at Agent Majeur, we designed a simple test in 8 questions to measure the attractiveness of a science poster.

To draw attention, you need to put some effort into the way your poster looks. An aesthetic poster will have a simple graphic design, be split into sections to make it easier to read and use contrasting colours. A good poster can be read without effort from a distance of around 1.5 metres away in-person or 50 cm online. It will also have as little text as possible and use 2 to 3 good illustrations, which speak for themselves.

Choose a title with impact

Whilst the style may be important, so is the content. In particular, the title must be sufficiently clear. It should also be catchy and punchy. It should summarise the objective, methods and results of the work presented, in no more than 1-2 lines. It is important to have a specific title to help your poster stand out from others on the same topic.

Imagine the following title, “New applications for molecular electrochemistry”. It gives an idea of the subject, but it lacks precision. A better title would be “Using molecular electrochemistry to reveal the secrets of redox reactivity” (Robert and Costentin, 2009). The second title is more explicit about the content of the poster (read more advice about writing a title) and includes a verb to state the aim or outcomes of the research.

Get to the point

Under the title, the text must highlight the objectives of the project, the methodology used, and the results obtained. Then comes the conclusion. The “methods” and “results” sections are the most important and should take up around 2/3 of the page. To avoid having too much or too little content, bear in mind that a poster should contain about 250-450 words.

It is worth noting that bibliographies are not obligatory on a science poster. However, as an author yourself, having no doubt written articles on the subject you are presenting, it would be in your best interest to mention them. They will help validate the scientific quality of your work.

Lighten your style

You should favour simple sentences and a direct writing style because they make the text easier to understand. The most important elements should appear at the beginning of the sentence. Try using this formula: subject-verb-complement (e.g. “eat your dinner”). Each sentence should be as short as possible. Ideally, no more than 15 words. You should use words that are as precise as possible, but still easy to understand and unpretentious.

Scientific and technical writing is based on efficiency. The total opposite of literary writing. The objective of a poster is achieved if the target audience understands the main message behind the research presented.

Presenting your poster online

The Covid-19 pandemic made it impossible to host big in-person scientific events. It has compelled organisers to rethink poster sessions. Meetings and conferences are now held online, via video-conferencing tools. In this case, a digital gallery brings together the various scientific posters and makes them available to the audience.

The content of a scientific poster for this type of event remains unchanged, apart from the fact that digital posters must be provided electronically in PDF format. Often, participants can make a video to explain their poster and accompany their PDF file. If that is the case, seize this opportunity! These videos last 2 to 4 minutes, and like webinars, these presentations are often recorded beforehand. Their content is very similar to a pitch, they help your audience to understand your work and its significance.

Using interactive screens

Touchscreens have begun to make their way into scientific symposiums and conferences as an interactive form of poster. They can be used to present researchers’ bios, their results and information on their laboratories. In addition, they provide an opportunity to enrich presentations with multimedia content: sound, videos, animation and weblinks.
Installed in a room, interactive screens provide a new way of holding a poster session. Each speaker can do their presentation next to a screen whilst engaging dialogue with participants. It is a more inclusive experience than a series of printed posters. On one of our missions, we designed interactive posters for an award presentation ceremony. In the cocktail area at the event, several touchscreens were made available around the room for guests to enjoy at their leisure.

With screens such as these, the public also gains in autonomy. People can consult each screen for a longer time, find a more diverse range of information and call upon the author of the poster if needed. This means the speaker does not have to stay near their poster, as is often the case in standard sessions. They can usually move to any screen, start a discussion by the buffet table and use the nearest touchscreen available to talk something through. These tools bring in a modern touch, but they also help to enrich the exchanges between researchers by sharing more content, in various formats.

Expanding your network

Generally, on the day of the event, you will be able to participate in a question and answer session, whether it is in-person or online. It is an excellent opportunity to exchange advice and ideas with your peers. In fact, do take advantage of these discussions to expand your address book and your LinkedIn network by taking the contact information of the people you meet and giving them yours.

Printed document or PDF format, interactive screen or video presentation, scientific posters keep being acclaimed. Even if they are reinvented under different formats, their objective is still the same: to present your research in a synthetic way with illustrations and to develop your professional network. A scientific poster is like an ambassador for your work. It represents you and helps you to stay informed on the current scientific developments in your field.

Science Magazine held a webinar dedicated to science communication. This round table, filmed in Washington, brought together a panel of experts on the subject. For an hour, four speakers discussed how to improve the way you communicate about your research to peers and the public. Here, we provide you with our selection of the top 10 tips from this event.

1. Understand your audience

As a scientist, you were no doubt trained to build up evidence and to support your arguments with meticulously thorough explanations. But who is to say that your public wants or needs to know everything? They might be more interested in certain aspects of your project than others. As Matthew S. Savoca, postdoctoral researcher at the Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University, states: “in science communication, a speaker should adjust the way they explain their work depending on the audience”.

When you start preparing your speech, you should be thinking about who your audience is. Put yourself in their shoes. The general public is interested in how your research affects their lives or society today, tomorrow, or in ten years’ time. Funders are usually interested in how they may get a return on their investment. Your peers will want to know more about how you work, what your findings are and the possibility for future collaborations. Industry partners will look for technologies that can help propose products or services that will become a commercial success. Make sure you understand what your audience is interested in and adapt your communication accordingly.

2. Build your message

In science communication, you will regularly come across complicated topics. Your audience might not remember everything you have said or written once your communication is over. So, you need to define what you want them to retain. What single idea should they leave the room with? This will be your message.

Alexia Youknovsky, CEO of Agent Majeur, science communication agency, recommends to figure out who your audience is and what they expect from your talk. You then need to think about your own objectives: what do you want to achieve? “By combining all that information, you can define what message you want to convey”.

3. Connect with the public

To successfully communicate, you first need to draw the attention of your audience and then connect with them. According to Laura Lindenfeld, director of the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, you need to ask yourself the following questions in order to communicate with your audience: “who is the person I am talking to? Why should they care about my work?”. Effective science communication is not only about facts and figures, but also about empathy.

She adds: “we usually make this assumption that human beings are thinking beings who also feel. But we are feeling beings who also think!”. In order to connect with your audience, you should convey emotion, even when talking to your peers. If you want to forge a link with them, you can make them laugh or surprise them, for example.

4. Tell your public a story

You could also choose to communicate using a story. Storytelling is a very specific way of evoking emotion. Stories are not just for children at bedtime. Just think about how much time adults spend reading novels or watching movies. Structuring the way you talk about your science into a story is a highly effective way to get your message across. Stories are also remembered more easily than technical explanations.

“Storytelling humanises scientists”, says Laura Helmuth, Health, Science and Environment Editor at  The Washington Post. Almost all research projects can be explained using visuals, analogies and metaphors. You can also decide to share a personal or professional anecdote. Try to find the stories that suit your topic!

5. Talk to journalists

Having access to a large public above that of your own network, can seem difficult but can also be very rewarding. In this respect, interacting with a journalist can be very effective. Before meeting a journalist, prepare yourself well. Start by understanding why they have contacted you and why they care about your research. Make a list of the questions you may be asked and prepare short and precise answers.

As Laura Helmuth suggests, any “information will get distilled when published”. You should try to do this exercise yourself rather than letting journalists doing it for you. When talking to journalists, it is also essential to be quick to respond and, if possible, generous with your time. She adds: “it’s a public service to your field, to your own research and to the audience”.

6. Make your science understandable

One can never popularise enough. Often, in scientific communication, a speaker or writer overestimates the public’s knowledge of a given subject. We name this phenomenon the “curse of knowledge”. The concept is simple: the person with expertise on a given topic will have a hard time explaining it to ordinary people. Laura Helmuth says that you should work on the assumption that “the people you are addressing have a million things that require their attention and concentration”. Therefore, try to popularise your speech.

As complex words may lead to misinterpretation and confusion, in scientific communication, jargon should be avoided. It is better to use simple words and sentences instead: this will help your public to stay focused on your reasoning. Keep in mind that for non-scientific audiences, most of the concepts you are going to discuss sound like a foreign language. “Remember the words that you once didn’t know Capture that memory of being confused” and ask yourself: “how can I say this differently?”

7. Deal with controversial topics

When you are communicating about a controversial issue, expect your public to have preconceived ideas or assumptions about it. In this instance, you should try a new approach rather than simply bombing them with facts.

Do not to assume that your audience is “hostile”. Instead, try to remember that it is easier to listen and trust a speaker who doesn’t talk down their nose at you. By respecting your audience’s opinion and demonstrating a willingness to engage with their questions, you can open up a dialogue more easily. With this in mind, try to see that controversy can have positive implications. And, you never know, it may even help you shed new light on your own research project.

8. Embrace uncertainty

Science is a process of building up evidence. What is true today may not be as accurate tomorrow. Uncertainty is inherent to science and research. As a matter of fact, “from a scientific perspective, uncertainty is the exciting part” (Matthew S. Savoca). Remember that, regardless of uncertainty, a researcher should be able to speak from a place of authenticity and accuracy. Hence, “embracing uncertainty” and not “shying away” from it will help you be more transparent and respectful towards your audience.

As a scientist, you should also shed light on the results that you are sure of based on your evidence. The words you choose should convey that idea of self-confidence. If you’re giving a presentation, it is also important to pay attention to your non-verbal communication. That is to say, your presence and your voice – what your audience sees and what they hear.

9. Mix communication channels

Articles, conference talks or the press may be considered as “traditional” tools for communicating science. However, in the past years, other tools such as social media, blogs, podcasts or videos have evolved to become important communication channels too.

And they are not only a fantastic way to communicate to the general public, they also provide the opportunity to exchange with fellow researchers and build scientific communities. When communicating, you should think about combining “traditional” tools and with newer ones. This will allow you to communicate in an interesting and dynamic way, broadening your audience’s experience.

10. Learn to communicate

Science communication is a skill that can be learned. Part of the way you may learn “[…] is by reading a lot, notice what sort of articles are interesting to you, what sort of quotes amplify a story or make something clearer to you when you’re reading somebody else’s work.” (Laura Helmuth).

You can also decide to attend a science communication training course, such as those proposed by Agent Majeur using our SELL Method®. You can be trained on public speaking: for example how to talk at a conference or how to present a research project in three minutes. Courses can also help you to improve your written communication: how to write a PhD thesis, a scientific article, or how to use social media.

Communicating science can spark interest and enthusiasm, help reverse negative attitudes and encourage support for your research and institution. It may be also be a great way to gain a deeper understanding of your research and its applications. So, yes, science can be sold and it is more positive than you may think.

You can watch the full webinar, sponsored by Fondation IPSEN, on the Science magazine website.

We have selected other key moments of the online seminar for you. You can watch our science communication tips on our YouTube channel.

General appearance

0 – Messy or cluttered.
1 – Nice to look at. Good use of colors, graphics and text.

Use of white space

0 – Very little. Concentration of texts and graphics.
1 – The poster sections are well separated.

Text / pictures balance

0 – Too much or not enough text.
1 – Good balance. The texts and graphics are well spread across the poster. There is enough text to understand the graphics.

Text size

0 – Too small to be legible from 1.5 m, including captions and pictures.
1 – Easily legible from 1.5 m.

Layout

0 – We don’t know how to look at the poster.
1 – The various poster sections can be easily spotted thanks to the titles.

Title

0 – Unclear to non-specialists.
1 – Identifies the topic and sums up the message.

Author identification

0 – Absent.
1 – Present: it specifies the author’s name and contact info (mail, e-mail…).

Research objectives

0 – Absent.
1 – Present and easy to spot.

Your total is 8 points? Congratulations, your poster is attractive and people want to read it! If you are short on a few points, here is an overview of the elements you should take in consideration to stand out.

For starters, you should particularly pay attention to your title. At one glance, the viewer should be able to identify the subject. The title must be emphasized on the poster to be read from a distance.

Next, work on the visual impact of your scientific poster. Use images, graphs or photos. A poster overloaded with text is unattractive. Including one or two high-quality images always attracts attention.

Finally, use a simple graphic design, limit yourself to 3 colours in addition to black which is used for text. Keep in mind that all the content presented in a poster should be organized differently from written information. Discomfort (standing position) and reading time (often short) should be considered.

A good scientific poster should not only be attractive. It is important to make it clear, structured, concise…Therefore, we invite you to discover detailed tips on how to improve both the content and appearance of your scientific posters.