Video vs Graphical Abstract vs Audio Summary: Which Format When
A plain guide to choosing between a video abstract, a graphical abstract and an audio summary based on who you want to reach and where. Covers publisher specs, effort, weak spots and a quick pick-by-situation list.
Your paper has been accepted and three suggestions land in the same week. The journal asks for a graphical abstract. A co-author thinks you should make a video. A colleague mentions they now listen to papers on the commute. You have time for one, maybe two.
The video abstract vs graphical abstract question (and where audio fits) is less about which format is fashionable and more about who you want to reach and where they will meet your work. Here is how each one behaves in practice.
Graphical abstract: one image, one idea
A graphical abstract is a single image that summarizes the main finding and sits next to the text abstract. Elsevier's graphical abstract guidelines describe it as a summary "in a concise, pictorial, professional form" and ask for an image of at least 1328 x 531 pixels (width x height) at 300 dpi that reads from top to bottom or left to right. Any text or label must be part of the image file itself.
Elsevier displays it in online search results, the online contents list and on the article page on ScienceDirect, but it typically does not appear in the article PDF or in print. The same page warns that the image will be reduced in size for the table of contents, so fonts need to be large.
Where it works: journal contents pages and search results, the summary slide of a talk, a poster panel, an image post on LinkedIn.
What it costs: one image, but real design effort, since a figure drawn for print must be rethought to work at thumbnail size.
What it does badly: it carries one idea. There is no room for caveats, a multi-step method or a result that needs context, and to someone outside your field a dense one can read like a puzzle.
Graphical abstract or infographic?
They are related but not the same. A graphical abstract is a doorway: one panel, minimal text, built to sit beside your abstract at a fixed size and send people into the paper.
An infographic is a handout: usually a full page with several panels, numbers and short sentences, built to be read on its own by someone who may never open the paper. A text-heavy infographic will not meet a spec like Elsevier's, and a graphical abstract printed on its own explains too little for someone passing a poster board.
Video abstract: a few minutes of explanation
A video abstract is a short narrated video of the paper's question, approach and findings. Taylor & Francis publishes video abstracts alongside the text abstract on Taylor & Francis Online, asks for 16:9 at 720p or better, and says 2 minutes 20 seconds or less is optimal for social media.
IOP Publishing's editorial guidelines cap video abstracts at four minutes, require clear verbal narration and a transcript, and rule out music soundtracks.
Where it works: the journal article page, YouTube, your lab site, a looping screen at a conference.
What it costs: the most effort of the three, with a script, visuals, narration, editing and sign-off from co-authors. Our guide on how to make a video abstract breaks this down.
What it does badly: it asks for two or three minutes of attention before anyone knows if your paper is for them. It needs captions for anyone watching without sound. And a horizontal 16:9 video fills only a narrow strip of a phone held upright, so for phone feeds you will want a separate vertical cut.
Audio summary: for ears that are free
An audio summary is a spoken explanation of the paper, a few minutes long, that someone can play like a short podcast episode.
Where it works: commutes, walks, the gym, and readers who take in dense material better by ear. It also travels across languages more easily than video, because a new language version needs no new visuals.
What it costs: a script and a clean recording, which is less effort than video.
What it does badly: nobody can glance back at your Figure 3. Results that are inherently visual (an image, a map, a structure) lose the most, and audio cannot be skimmed.
Pick by situation
- A methods-heavy paper: a video abstract, because narration over a stepped visual explains a pipeline better than one static panel.
- A finding the public will care about: a vertical short for the feed and an audio version for listeners, with an infographic for press or outreach.
- An international audience: audio in the listener's own language, plus captions on any video.
- A talk next week: a graphical abstract as your summary slide, and a short video to loop before you start.
- A poster: an infographic for the board, with a QR code that links to the video.
- The journal requires one: follow its spec first, then reuse the effort elsewhere.
You do not have to pick
Amplify takes the choice out of it. One order, for one paper, makes four formats from the same PDF: a 16:9 video abstract of about 3 minutes, a 9:16 vertical short of 45 to 60 seconds, an audio brief in English plus 21 more languages on request (22 in total), and a one-page, print-ready infographic.
Everything is generated from your PDF and nothing else, and each piece carries the title, the authors and a link back to the paper. Each format arrives as three variants you can edit line by line. A person reviews every format before release, and nothing publishes until you approve it.
The analytics then show reads, listens, questions asked, languages and which format moved people, so next time the choice rests on evidence, not a guess.
One honest note: the infographic is a one-page handout, not a journal-spec graphical abstract. If your journal requires a graphical abstract at fixed dimensions, follow its guidelines for that one.
Formats are not a ranking. They are different doors into the same paper, and different people walk through different doors. Choose by who you want to reach, and let the numbers tell you what worked.
Quick answers
What is the difference between a graphical abstract and an infographic?
A graphical abstract is a doorway into the paper, while an infographic is a handout meant to be read on its own. A graphical abstract is one panel with minimal text, built to sit beside your abstract at a fixed size. An infographic is usually a full page with several panels, numbers and short sentences, for someone who may never open the paper.
What size should a graphical abstract be for an Elsevier journal?
Elsevier's graphical abstract guidelines ask for an image of at least 1328 x 531 pixels (width x height) at 300 dpi. The image should read from top to bottom or left to right, and any text or labels must be part of the image file itself. Use large fonts, because the image will be reduced in size for the table of contents.
Should I make a video abstract or a graphical abstract?
Choose by who you want to reach and where they will meet your work. A graphical abstract suits journal contents pages, search results and summary slides, but it carries only one idea. A video abstract suits a methods-heavy paper, but it takes the most effort of the three and asks for two or three minutes of attention. If your journal requires one, follow its spec first.
When is an audio summary better than a video abstract?
An audio summary works better when your audience is listening on commutes, walks or at the gym, or takes in dense material better by ear. It takes less effort than video and travels across languages more easily, because a new language version needs no new visuals. Inherently visual results, such as an image, a map or a structure, lose the most, and audio cannot be skimmed.
