Readability in Policy Communication: Insights from a Bibliometric Analysis
Keywords:
bibliometric analysis, policy documents, readability, reading comprehensionAbstract
Readability plays a vital role in documentation to ensure that the targeted readers and the public understand the shared information. Readable documents allow readers to comprehend unfamiliar texts easily, hence helping them make informed decisions. Past studies have shown that documents related to law, finance, business, medical, nursing, and insurance policies, among others, often need clarification for laymen to comprehend the context due to the technical jargon used. To achieve a clearer insight into the readability of policy documents, this study conducts a bibliometric analysis of research articles from 2004 to 2024, exploring the research trends, significant contributors, prominent subject areas, themes, and countries’ collaboration in the research field. The finding reveals that the published articles' trend fluctuated and peaked in 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Essential analysis of the key authors and their cited articles, popular research topics, keywords, and international cooperation networks are also highlighted. It is suggested that future research on readability in public documents should be expanded to broader geographical areas, studying different cultures and norms that affect readability and thus enhance global policy communication.
References
Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale Ebrahim,
N. (2013), A comparison between two main academic literature collections: web of science and Scopus databases, Asian Social Science, Vol. 9 No. 5, pp. 18-26.
AIRyalat, S. A. S., Malkawi, L. W., & Momani, S. M. (2019). Comparing bibliometric analysis using
PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. JoVE (Journal of Visualized Experiments),
(152), e58494. doi:10.3791/58494 (2019).
Akal, A. Y. (2022). What are the readability issues in sub-contracting’s tender documents?. Buildings, 12(6), 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12060839
Ali, B., Mulkerrin, E. C., & O'Keeffe, S. T. (2019). Jargon Content and Readability of Health Service
Policy Documents. British Journal of Healthcare Management, 25(4), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjhc.2019.0014
Alkhurayyif, Y. & Weir, G. R. S. (2018). Using sequential exploratory mixed methods design to
explore readability of ISPs. 2018 International Conference on Computing, Electronics & Communications Engineering (iCCECE), Southend, UK, 2018, pp. 123-127, doi: 10.1109/iCCECOME.2018.8659025.
Alschner, W., D’Alimonte, D., Giuga G.C., & Gadbois, S. (2020). Plain language assessment of
statutes. Proceedings of the conference on legal knowledge and information systems (JURIX), pp 207–210. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3233/ FAIA2 00865
Arora, A., Lam, A. S., Karami, Z., Do, L. G. & Harris, M. F. (2014). How readable are Australian
paediatric oral health education materials?. BMC Oral Health [Internet] 14(1), 111. https://doi-org.uitm.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/1472-6831-14-111 (2014).
Athilingam, P., Jenkins, B. & Redding, B. A. (2019). Reading level and suitability of congestive heart
failure (CHF) Education in a mobile app (CHF Info App): Descriptive design study. JMIR Aging [Internet] 2(1), e12134 (2019).
Barczuk-Grędzińska, K. (2015). The Usefulness of Readability Formulas in the Insurance Industry. Olsztyn Economic Journal. 10. 339-351. 10.31648/oej.3157.
Becher, S.I. & Benoliel, U. (2021). Law in books and law in action: the readability of privacy policies
and the GDPR. Consumer law and economics, Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49028-7_9
Coleman, M. & Liau, T. L. (1975). A computer readability formula designed for machine scoring,
Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, pp. 283–284.
Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M., McNamara, D. S., & Kyle, K. (2017). Predicting text
comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: New approaches to readability
formulas. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 340-359. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1296264
Cutts, M. (2020). Oxford guide to plain English. Oxford University Press, USA.
Dale, E. & Chall, J. (1948). A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin. 27:
, 20-28.
Derguech, W., Zainab, S. S., & d’Aquin, M. (2018). Assessing the readability of policy documents: The case of terms of use of online services. Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209415.3209498
Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a
bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines, Journal of Business Research, Volume 133,2021, Pages 285-296, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070.
DuBay, W. H. (2007). Smart Language: Readers, Readability, and the Grading of Text. Impact
Information: Costa Mesa, California. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED506403
Dubey, P., Agrawal, P. K., Chourasia, H., Nayak, M., & Gehani, H. (2023). Bibliometric analysis of
data science research: A decade of insights from Web of Science, 2023 Fourth International Conference on Smart Technologies in Computing, Electrical and Electronics (ICSTCEE), Bengaluru, India, 2023, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICSTCEE60504.2023.10585030.
Dziubaniuk, O., Barner-Rasmussen, W., Koporcic, N., Ivanova-Gongne , M., Mandják, T., &
Markovic, S. (2021). Business-to-business marketing research: Assessing readability and discussing relevance to practitioners. Industrial Marketing Management, Elsevier 92, 217-231, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.012.
Fahimnia, B., Sarkis, J., & Davarzani, H. (2015). Green supply chain management: A review and
bibliometric analysis. International journal of production economics, 162, 101-114, 162. 10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.01.003.
Flesch, R. A. (1948). new readability yardstick. J. Appl. Psychol. [Internet] 32(3), 221–233. https://doi-org.uitm.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/h0057532
Gerdsri, N. & Kongthon, A. (2018). Identify potential opportunity for research collaboration using
bibliometrics (Open Access). International Journal of Business, 23 (3), pp. 248-260. http://www.craig.csufresno.edu/ijb/Volumes/Volume%2023/V233-3.pdf
Goksu, I. (2021). Bibliometric mapping of mobile learning. Telematics and Informatics, 56, 101491.
Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gunning, R. (1968). The technique of clear writing (rev. ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill
Hamnes, B., Van Eijk-Hustings, Y. & Primdahl, J. (2016). Readability of patient information and
consent documents in rheumatological studies. BMC Med Ethics https://doi-org.uitm.idm.oclc.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0126-0
Hassan, W. & Duarte, A. E. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: A few suggestions, Current Problems in
Cardiology, Volume 49, Issue 8, 2024, 102640, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2024.102640.
Jindal, P. & MacDermid, J. (2017). Assessing reading levels of health information: Uses and
limitations of Flesch formula. Educ. Health [Internet] 30(1), 84. https://doi-org.uitm.idm.oclc.org/10.4103/1357-6283.210517
Kerr, K. T. (2014). A study of the Plain Writing Act of 2010: Federal agency, writer, and user
appropriations of US plain language policy. http://hdl.handle.net/10919/50426
Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P., Rogers, R.L. & Chissom, B.S. (1975). Derivation of new readability
formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for Navy
enlisted personnel. Naval Air Station Memphis: Chief of Naval Technical Training. Research Branch Report 8–75.
Lambert, K., Johnstone, C., Vellar, L., & Berg, N. (2022). Implementation of an organisational wide
approach to improving policy documents using plain language: a case study. Australian
Health Review, 46(3), 361-366.
Liske, C. (2023). The plain English movement in legal writing and its (dis) advantages for non-native
speakers of English. Theoretical background and survey results. Lingua Legis, (31).
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading — A new readability formula. Journal of Reading. 12 (8): 639–646.
Öztürk, O., Kocaman, R. & Kanbach, D.K. (2024). How to design bibliometric research: an overview
and a framework proposal. Rev Manag Sci 18, 3333–3361 (2024). https://doi-org.uitm.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s11846-024-00738-0
Schriver, K. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE transactions on professional communication, 60(4), 343-383. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2765118
Smit, T., VanHaastrecht, M., & Spruit, M. (2021). The effect of countermeasure readability on security intentions. Journal of Cybersecurity and Privacy, 1(4), 675-703. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcp1040034
Verbeek, A., Debackere, K., Luwel, M. and Zimmermann, E. (2002). Measuring progress and evolution in science and technology – I: the multiple uses of bibliometric indicators, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Waller, R. (2011). Simplification: what is gained and what is lost. Simplification Centre Technical Paper, 1. https://www.academia.edu/download/31181560/1SimplificationGainedLost-v4.pdf
Wu, Y.C.J. and Wu, T. (2017). A decade of entrepreneurship education in the Asia Pacific for future directions in theory and practice. Management Decision, Vol. 55 No. 7, pp. 1333-1350.
Yang, C., Huang, C., & Su, J. (2020). A bibliometrics-based research framework for exploring policy evolution: A case study of China's information technology policies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2020, 157, 120116, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120116
Ye-na Gan, Duo-duo Li, Nicola Robinson, Jian-ping Liu. (2022). Practical guidance on bibliometric analysis and mapping knowledge domains methodology – A summary. European Journal of Integrative Medicine, Volume 56, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2022.102203.
Zhang, C. & Guan, J. (2022). How policies emerge and interact with each other? A bibliometric analysis of policies in China, Science and Public Policy, Volume 49, Issue 3, June 2022, Pages 441–459, https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scab091
Zou, Y., Danino, S., Sun, K., & Schaub, F. (2019). You might be affected: An empirical analysis of readability and usability issues in data breach notifications. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300424
Downloads
Published
Versions
- 2025-08-01 (2)
- 2025-07-31 (1)
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Noli Maishara Nordin, Kamisah Ariffin, Khalid Mat Pardi, Faiza Rostam Affendi
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
