Readability assessment of psychiatry journals

Abstract

Introduction: Peer-reviewed journals in psychiatry are the primary source of new information for researchers and clinicians. New evidence is emerging faster than ever. To maintain the highest standards of practice, clinicians and researchers need to make sense of the latest research. To facilitate this, papers need to be clear, concise, and highly readable. Clear communication is especially important in fields like psychiatry, which brings together many different research approaches. The aim of the study was to assess the readability of the most prominent journals in psychiatry. Method: We tested the readability over time of articles from eight of the most widely cited psychiatric journals. We sampled 504 articles from different issues and years of publication (2002-2013) and looked at their Abstracts, Introductions, and Discussion sections using five validated readability metrics. We also compared the readability of psychiatry journals to general medicine journals for the year 2013. Results: The readability level of all psychiatry journals was “very difficult” across time. Psychiatry journals were harder to read than general medical journals (P<0.001). We found that the strongest predictors of poor readability in psychiatry journals were high impact factor, article type (review), and high number of words per sentence. The Discussion was the most readable section of psychiatry papers, followed by the Abstract, and Introduction. Conclusion: Psychiatry articles require a high level of effort because they are difficult to read. Authors and editors should strive to make articles as readable as possible. This may increase the uptake of evidence and improve practice.