Aim: This study aims to examine the existence and scope of author guidelines pertaining to graphical abstract use in journals operating in the field of medical education. Within this scope, the study seeks to develop recommendations by evaluating the provisions related to graphical abstracts in journal guidelines, including format and content requirements, design recommendations, ethical and copyright regulations, and the status of mandatory versus optional submission.Methods: Journals in the field of medical education were systematically screened in the Web of Science (WoS) database up to March 10, 2026, yielding a total of 200 journals. Following a screening process based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 21 journals were included in the study. The guidelines of 7 journals that contained graphical abstract guidelines were analyzed using content analysis, a qualitative analysis method.Results: One-third of the 21 journals included in the study had graphical abstract guidelines. The findings obtained through content analysis of the guidelines of the 7 journals with graphical abstract guidelines were organized under 6 themes: policy and implementation principles, resource/service provision, format requirements, content requirements, design recommendations, and ethical and copyright regulations. Upon examination of the policy and implementation principles theme, only one journal mandated graphical abstract submission for certain study types, while the majority left it optional or provided no information on the matter. Information regarding where the graphical abstract would be published was shared by a limited number of journals. None of the journals offered authors guides, examples, or tools, while only one journal provided template support; four journals that left graphical abstract submission optional mentioned the availability of paid services. Format requirements were generally limited to document format and size specifications, with requirements such as resolution and document orientation specified by very few journals. Regarding content requirements, guidelines on titles and visual duplication were present in a limited number of journals, whereas no explanation was provided concerning data presentation principles or structural schemas. In terms of design recommendations, accessibility was emphasized by only one journal, and no journal provided information on layout or reading direction. With respect to ethical and copyright regulations, copyright was highlighted by only two journals, and no policy regarding artificial intelligence use was found in any of the journal guidelines examined.Conclusions: While the potential of graphical abstracts to enhance the visibility of research is frequently emphasized in the literature, the findings revealed a gap in the publication strategies of journals lacking graphical abstract guidelines and exposed a lack of standardization in the format, content, design, and ethical policies of those journals that do have guidelines. To preserve this potential, it is recommended that journals establish clear and standardized guidelines for graphical abstracts, include subject-matter experts on their editorial boards, and share supportive educational content for researchers who lack competence in this area. It is anticipated that these approaches will encourage researchers to submit graphical abstracts, ensure the creation of high-quality graphical abstracts, and assist readers in reaching broader audiences and comprehending complex information.
Boz et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: