KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Wiley embraces a future-looking AI policy with guidelines on responsible and ethical use, with human oversight, to ensure the integrity of publications.
• The guidelines also provide tips on how AI can be used, effective prompt engineering, and choosing the best AI tools for the project.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is becoming more widely adopted within scientific publishing, yet many authors remain unsure how to use it effectively while maintaining the integrity of their research. Highlighted by an article in Research Information, Wiley have released AI guidelines for book authors in response to findings that ~70% of researchers want publisher guidance on using AI.

The guidelines include:

• Reviewing terms and conditions: authors should regularly review terms and conditions to ensure that their chosen AI technology does not claim ownership over the content or limit its use.
• Maintaining human oversight: AI should assist but not replace authors. Authors must take full responsibility for their work and review any AI-generated content before submission.
• Disclosing AI use: authors should document all AI use, including its purpose and impact on findings, and describe how AI-generated content was verified.
• Ensuring protection of rights: authors must ensure that the AI used (or its provider) does not gain rights over the authors’ material, including for the purposes of training the AI.
• Using AI responsibly and ethically: authors must comply with data protection laws, avoid using AI to copy the style or voice of others, fact-check the accuracy of AI-generated content, and be mindful of potential biases.

The guidance also provides recommendations on how to write prompts and select AI tools, as well as suggestions on use cases for authors newer to AI:

• analysing research and recognising themes across sources
• exploring ways to simplify complicated topics
• adapting work so it is relatable for different audiences
• polishing work by refining language and checking for consistency.

The guidelines complement Wiley’s existing generative AI framework for journal publications. As stated by Jay Flynn (Wiley EVP & General Manager, Research & Learning), “writers and researchers are already using AI tools, whether publishers like it or not. At Wiley, we’d rather embrace this shift than fight it”.

“Writers and researchers are already using AI tools, whether publishers like it or not. At Wiley, we’d rather embrace this shift than fight it”
– Jay Flynn, Wiley EVP & General Manager, Research & Learning

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Challenges with securing peer reviewers may not be linked to a “shrinking reviewer pool” but underutilisation of the wider global pool.
• New approaches, such as developing fit-for-purpose search tools, engaging junior experts, and offering viable compensation, may help journals source new peer reviewers.

Peer review is key to scientific integrity, so why is it becoming increasingly difficult for journals to secure peer reviewers? This topic was explored in a recent Springer Nature article authored by Arunas Radzvilavicius. The huge increase in peer review requests through the publication boom of the last 20 years has made it harder for journals to match peer reviewers. But does this reflect a shrinking reviewer pool?

In fact, the number of potential reviewers is growing at a faster rate than publications, according to Radzvilavicius. This suggests the ‘reviewer shortage’ is due to limitations in the methods for matching reviewers. Radzvilavicius describes barriers to securing peer reviewers:

• repeat invitations to the same individuals
• high reviewer workloads
• distrust of commercial publishers
• lack of viable incentives.

“Journals should tap into the global reviewer pool to address the ‘reviewer shortage’.”

Alternative approaches to finding reviewers

Radzvilavicius emphasises journals should tap into the global reviewer pool to address the ‘reviewer shortage’. Journals could:

• Substitute Google Scholar for more advanced, impartial peer review tools. Radzvilavicius describes Google Scholar as a go-to method of sourcing reviewers, but its algorithms are unclear and prone to bias. Fit-for-purpose tools should be developed with global coverage, regular updates, automated invitation/acceptance rate tracking, and filters to avoid over-used reviewers.
• Utilise AI. Automating time-intensive tasks, such as verifying statistics and ethics statements, through large language models would significantly reduce reviewers’ workloads.
• Engage junior expert reviewers. Highlight the opportunities for career progression and acknowledgement that peer review offers, and provide workshops and networking events.
• Introduce financial compensation. To address concerns that incentivising peer review may impact quality, Radzvilavicius argues that the opposite may be true: “paying for the service allows you to demand a high-quality product”.  

Radzvilavicius emphasises that there are “plenty of reviewers worldwide” – we just need better ways of finding them. Changing the approach could offer broad benefits, accelerating quality peer review.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Visuals are an important tool in science communication, particularly for making complex information easier to understand.
• Visuals should be incorporated in storytelling from the start and designed for impact, inclusivity, and accessibility.

Effective use of visuals is a powerful tool in scientific storytelling: the subject of an article by Madhukara Kekulandara. Kekulandara (National Association of Science Writers) reported on a ScienceWriters2024 workshop where panellists Rachel Ehrenberg (Knowable Magazine), Jen Christiansen (Scientific American), and Beth Rakouskas (Science magazine) looked at benefits and potential pitfalls with visuals in scientific publishing.

The panellists discussed several key uses of visuals:

• acting as an “invitation” to a story
• driving the scientific narrative
• communicating complex ideas, sometimes through visuals that “function independently of the text”.

Opportunities to incorporate graphics should be identified early in the development process, with clear objectives set for each visual.

The panel raised potential challenges with using visuals in storytelling:

• Inclusivity of images: Ethical concerns arise when using sensitive images. Care must be taken to ensure inclusivity for under-represented groups whilst avoiding stereotypes. Engaging impacted communities in the process can be beneficial.
• Accessibility of visuals: Inclusion of effective alt text is crucial for visually impaired or blind readers.
• Engagement in the digital era: Interactive graphics or short-form videos can be particularly impactful in this digital age. Graphics should also be adjusted for viewing on smaller screens.
• Leveraging AI: The panellists recognised AI’s potential in visual creation, but warned against it substituting human creativity, as it “can perpetuate biases and stifle creative problem-solving”.

“AI should be viewed as an additional collaborator in developing engaging and informative visuals, working alongside writers and designers.”

There is no doubt that visuals can transform storytelling. Looking to the future, the panellists urged that AI should be viewed as an additional collaborator in developing engaging and informative visuals, working alongside writers and designers – not replacing them.

————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place in Washington, DC on 12–14 May. Centring on the theme ‘Diversity and Innovation: In Concert’, the meeting highlighted how uniting varied perspectives can drive creativity and progress in medical communications.

A summary of the third day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

A summary of Day 1 can be found here and our Day 2 summary is here.

Summaries of Day 3

Innovating through diverse therapeutic solutions: update on digital therapeutics

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Medical communications for DTx must teach, inform, and engage diverse stakeholders across regulatory, clinical, commercial, and technical domains.
• Evidence for DTx must go beyond RCTs to include real-world data, health economics, and patient voice to secure trust and reimbursement.

In this parallel session, Claudia Piano (ApotheCom), Frances Thorndike (Nox Health), and Mariya Petrova (Click Therapeutics) offered valuable perspectives and practical considerations for medical communications professionals working in the evolving field of digital therapeutics (DTx). Defined by the DTx Alliance as evidence-based software interventions designed to prevent, manage, or treat medical disorders, DTx are typically delivered through apps, wearables, or other digital platforms. While regulated as medical devices, they present distinct challenges due to continuous data tracking, iterative software development, and complex stakeholder expectations.

While regulated as medical devices, DTx present distinct challenges due to continuous data tracking, iterative software development, and complex stakeholder expectations.

Piano charted the development of the DTx sector from early funding in 2003 to today’s focus on AI-driven personalisation, sustainable business models, and real-world performance. She highlighted how DTx is increasingly embedded into broader care pathways, with implications for cross-functional communication and market access.

Thorndike presented a case study of an FDA-cleared DTx for chronic insomnia, illustrating the types of evidence needed, from clinical trial data to real-world outcomes and health economics. Her presentation emphasised the importance of post-market validation and the inclusion of the patient voice.

In the third part of the session, Petrova explored the publication challenges unique to Prescription Drug Use-Related Software (PDURS), such as compressed timelines, multidimensional audiences, and regulatory uncertainty. She stressed the importance of early strategic planning and adaptable publication approaches.

The session closed with a clear call to arms: despite growing interest, awareness and confidence among clinicians remain limited. Just 34% of surveyed healthcare professionals (HCPs) felt confident recommending Software as a Medical Device (SaMD), and only 32% for Prescription Digital Therapeutics. This gap presents a powerful opportunity for medical communications professionals to take the lead in educating, informing, and elevating the profile of DTx across the healthcare landscape.

The rhythm of innovation: crescendo and drumbeats in concert

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Small, well-executed ideas can create meaningful impact when teams plan, collaborate, and launch with purpose.

As the pace of scientific progress accelerates, medical communicators must find new ways to deliver ethical, effective, and patient-focused messages. Kristyn Morgan (Envision Pharma Group) chaired a session featuring Catherine Skobe (Pfizer), Kathryn Coles (Envision Pharma Group), and Gary Lyons (Coronado Research), which looked at how innovation can be defined, nurtured, and embedded across scientific communication roles—offering actionable insights for professionals seeking to drive change within their organisations.

Skobe opened by exploring the concept of innovation, emphasising its relevance beyond just technological solutions. She highlighted its role in combating misinformation, improving health equity, and strengthening patient outcomes. Drawing on the metaphor of kintsugi, she encouraged embracing imperfection and learning through iteration—framing innovation as both purposeful and creative.

Coles focused on cultivating environments where innovation can thrive. She outlined the importance of frameworks and systems that integrate continuous idea generation, strategic alignment, and collaboration. Innovation, she argued, should be embedded in culture—supported by trust, space to fail, and leadership buy-in.

Innovation needs structure and rhythm—so good ideas don’t stall, but gain momentum and drive meaningful change.

Lyons tackled the practical barriers to adoption. He highlighted the ‘Valley of Death’ where promising ideas often stall due to rigid structures, communication breakdowns, or lack of support. To overcome this, Lyons recommended treating new ideas as structured proposals: define the benefits, build cross-functional teams, and plan for phased implementation. He advocated for launch strategies that include visible leadership support and internal promotion to generate excitement and traction.

The session closed with the powerful message that innovation doesn’t have to be big to be impactful. Even small, well-supported initiatives—like the surgical safety checklist inspired by aviation protocols—can transform healthcare outcomes. For scientific communicators, the challenge and opportunity lie in thinking differently, acting boldly, and fostering a culture where new ideas can take flight.

The right venue: maximising impact across medical congresses and societies

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective congress engagement relies on early planning, format adaptability, vigilance against predatory events, and smart use of extenders to maximise reach and inclusivity.

Strategic congress planning: making every meeting matter

Selecting the right medical congress can significantly influence scientific communication, engagement, and long-term impact. During this panel discussion moderated by Susan Cuozzo (GSK), Wendi Schultz (Pfizer) and Melissa Goodman (American Urological Association) shared strategies for selecting venues, avoiding predatory events, and extending the life of congress presentations through global and digital approaches.

Choosing the right congress
Large congresses offer broad reach and visibility, while smaller ones enable deeper dialogue with authors and HCPs. Discussions underscored that planning should begin with a clear understanding of publication goals, timelines, and audience needs. Smaller congresses also offer critical access for HCPs unable to attend larger meetings.

Adapting content and format
Tailoring messages for specific congresses requires balancing scientific rigour with readability. Infographics, QR codes, and inclusive design enhance accessibility. Close alignment with authors and awareness of congress guidelines is key.

Spotting red flags in predatory congresses
Delegates should watch for unsolicited invites, vague event details, and too-frequent scheduling. A lack of transparency or an unusually narrow editorial board may signal concerns. “If it doesn’t feel right, do your research” the panel advised—asking peers and organisers can help confirm legitimacy.

Going global, staying local
Global-to-local strategies can boost inclusion and amplify diverse research, particularly among emerging markets. The American Urological Association’s Global Gateway programme (AUA2025 Annual Meeting) to highlight international research contributions, and diversity, equity and inclusion-driven abstract categories were cited as effective models. Engaging local authors and planning early supports successful facilitation of local meetings.

Extending congress content

PLS, podcasts, videos, and encore presentations can extend a congress’s impact well beyond the event.

Plain language summaries (PLS), podcasts, videos, and encore presentations can extend a congress’s impact well beyond the event. Subtitles increase accessibility, and QR codes ensure initial engagement—even before manuscript publication. When authors support these extenders, their advocacy strengthens dissemination.

Guided Poster Tour

Attendees had the opportunity to attend guided poster tours of the following posters:

• Insights from post-publication peer review to guide authors on transparency, engagement, and narrative control – Pamela Harvey
• Clinical guidelines: potential implications of not managing citations to retracted articles – Marissa Buttaro, Stephen Craig, Andy Shepherd

Evolution of AI prompts in medical publication development: practical considerations and guidance

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Thoughtful prompt engineering with iterative, multi-agent approaches is key to harnessing AI effectively in medical writing but human oversight remains essential.

In this illuminating session, presenters Vijay Krishnan (Pfizer), Michael Pellegrino (ICON Global Medical Communications) and Tony Lan (Merck) unpacked the science behind prompt engineering, which is crucial to unlock AI’s full potential in medical publications.

Engineered vs non-engineered

Lan explained how non-engineered (or “zero-shot”) prompts are straightforward queries with minimal structure and no refinement before use. Engineered prompts use examples, contextual cues, or even AI-generated scaffolds to produce more targeted outputs. Engineered prompts range from one-shot designs upwards, and their quality increases with prompt relevance, specificity, and volume of example material provided—though so does the effort. Users should be aware of their desired time commitment, since drafts using engineered prompts will still need substantial review and revision by subject matter experts.

Iterative agents: AI playing in harmony

Krishnan introduced the concept of using multiple AI agents to improve outputs. For example using AI in the roles of “writer” and “critic” in an iterative process to refine content. This back-and-forth dynamic mimics the editorial process and can help generate outputs closer to publication-ready material. These agents can be trained to remember tone, journal preferences, and terminology.

Future perspective

AI is evolving quickly and will eventually become commonplace; however the core principals of scientific publishing will remain unchanged.

AI is evolving quickly and will eventually become commonplace; however the core principals of scientific publishing will remain unchanged. Most companies will not currently be using AI in this capacity and medical writers have an important role in developing the “Writer” agent.

Keynote – Generative AI: how human expertise and authenticity matter more than ever

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI is a tool that everyone should be using, and we need to learn how to get the best out of it. Medical publication professionals can leverage the power of generative AI to enhance their productivity and become content domain experts.

Tech expertise is not needed

Conor Grennan (NYU Stern School of Business) started his presentation by disclosing that he is not a technical expert, and that his presentation would have little to do with technology. But Conor explained this shouldn’t be a barrier to successfully using AI. He gave an example of how AI interacts with us: in response to being told it had given an incorrect response to a question, the generative AI apologised and stated that it had performed some research, which Conor explained was a lie. This demonstrates to us how generative AI works – it provides answers in a similar way to humans, modelling its behaviour on what it observes.

Speak to AI like it’s human

Understanding that generative AI is mimicking human behaviour allows us to make a shift in the way we use it. Rather than interacting with AI like it’s Google, we should be asking it questions as if it were a person. Conor gave an example of trying to plan a holiday in Costa Rica. Google may provide you with a list of the top ten things to do, but won’t generate a personalised response based on your interests. Instead you can tell AI that it is the head of the tourism board in Costa Rica, and have it ask you questions to find the activities best suited to you.

The value of domain expertise and tone

Having expertise in an area gives us an advantage that generative AI can’t replicate. Our understanding allows us to lead AI in content generation knowing what quality looks like and what drives value for us. The most important thing in the AI era is domain expertise by a human individual. Although AI can generate content, it will never have specific knowledge; companies should therefore be careful not to lose people with this expertise. Conor recommended that we write first drafts of documents, to maintain personal tone and style; otherwise all content will start to look the same.

The most important thing in the AI era is domain expertise by a human individual.

Integrate AI into your working

Conor urged us not to spend time thinking about which tasks we should use AI for. Instead we should be using it automatically for everything. AI should be augmenting us, not the other way around.

Member research oral presentations

BlueSky vs X: can a new platform dethrone the HCP social media giant?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Bluesky is emerging as a key platform for healthcare professional engagement, signalling a shift in professional medical communication strategies.

Leslie Rotz (Fingerpaint Medical) presented a study investigating whether Bluesky —an emerging social media platform—could challenge X (formerly Twitter) as the leading space for HCP engagement.

Analysing data from 472 HCP digital opinion leaders (DOLs) between 2019 and 2024, the study showed a clear trajectory: X experienced a rise in activity during the COVID-19 pandemic, followed by a notable decline after the platform’s change in ownership in 2022. Meanwhile, Bluesky has been steadily gaining ground, especially among infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and rheumatologists. The shift was evident during major medical congresses, where X’s hashtag activity dropped while Bluesky saw an increase in both hashtag creation and sharing of medically relevant content.

Bluesky has been steadily gaining ground, especially among infectious disease specialists, oncologists, and rheumatologists.

These patterns suggest a broader shift in how HCPs communicate online. As Rotz concluded, the growing presence of HCP DOLs and congress conversations on Bluesky suggests a strategic pivot is underway in medical social media, with important implications for how and where scientific dialogue takes place.

Collaboration with patient partners and data scientists to develop a lexicon for Artificial Intelligence-enhanced medical communication

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI-assisted, patient co-created lexicons can enhance the clarity and accessibility of medical content for people living with rare diseases.

Anne Clare Wadsworth (Amica Scientific) presented the findings from a pilot study exploring how AI can improve PLS for people living with myasthenia gravis (MG).

The authors collaborated with 4 patient partners to co-create a lexicon of 118 terms, covering MG, treatments, and clinical trials. Using an AI application, the lexicon was applied to 19 MG-related PLS, resulting in 80 unique content improvement suggestions. A professional medical writer confirmed that 68% of these AI-recommended changes would have been adopted in practice. Patient partners also contributed 48 revisions to refine the lexicon.

Feedback from both patient partners and users of the AI tool was positive, despite limitations such as a small sample size and the early development stage of the AI app. Wadsworth concluded that combining AI technology with patient insights holds significant promise for accelerating the creation of accessible, patient-focused medical communications.

Combining AI technology with patient insights holds significant promise for accelerating the creation of accessible, patient-focused medical communications.

In harmony: a musical exploration of connection, collaboration and creativity

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Songwriting and medcomms writing both require storytelling, listening, and authenticity.
• Collaboration can take many forms, each enriching the creative process.

In an inspiring ISMPP session centred on the theme of creativity through music, attendees were treated to an unexpected but inspiring experience. Participants heard the personal and professional journey of singer-songwriter Dheepa Chari (GSK). Tracing her musical roots back to her grandmother in India, Chari shared how her passion for music evolved alongside a scientific academic path. She drew compelling parallels between songwriting and medical publications writing, highlighting the importance of storytelling, authenticity, and the power of listening.

Participants reflected on their own creative inspirations and were encouraged to prioritise simplicity and honesty in their communication.

Participants reflected on their own creative inspirations—ranging from nature and empathy to patients and AI—and were encouraged to prioritise simplicity and honesty in their communication. The session concluded with live performances by Chari and her producer and jazz musician Sandro Albert, each song illustrating a unique form of collaboration and offering fresh perspectives on the creative process.

Encore! Hot topics and meeting highlights

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• AI is prompting a re-evaluation of writing workflows and the need for thoughtful application in content creation and metrics.
• Traditional success measures are no longer enough—there’s a call for new, meaningful metrics that reflect real-world impact.

A lively ISMPP plenary session brought together programme chairs and leaders for a reflective discussion on the meeting’s standout moments. Richard Davis (ApotheCom) introduced the session with a Shakespearean-style prologue written by ChatGPT—complete with theatrical stage directions—setting the tone for a creative and thoughtful exchange.

Panellists shared personal insights, with recurring themes of collaboration, empathy, and innovation. Jennifer Ghith (GSK) highlighted the productive dialogue on collaboration with publishers and the need for simplification around copyright. Kris Schuler (Pfizer Oncology) observed that medical publications are at an inflection point, emphasising empathy, tone, and cross-sector collaboration to improve patient care.

Dana Fox (IPG Health Medical Communications) reflected on the interconnected focus areas of communication, collaboration, and innovation, noting ISMPP’s work to navigate regional disparities and promote equity. Valerie Moss (Prime Global) echoed the importance of empathy, especially in making patients feel seen and heard through writing.

Davis underscored ISMPP’s cross-functional collaboration, highlighting the work of the AI taskforce. A spirited discussion on the role of AI prompted Ghith to rethink using it for first drafts, while others considered AI’s potential for supporting better metrics. The panel agreed on the need to move beyond traditional metrics toward ones that better reflect engagement and real-world value.

The panel agreed on the need to move beyond traditional metrics toward ones that better reflect engagement and real-world value.

Board of Trustees ceremony and closing remarks and CMPP update

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ISMPP reaffirmed its core values and commitment to respectful, engaged leadership.
• Attendees were encouraged to stay involved through events, podcasts, and MedComms Day.

Chair of the ISMPP Board of Trustees, Tomas Rees (Oxford PharmaGenesis), opened the ceremony by reflecting on the organisation’s 2024 achievements and the Board’s progress. The traditional plaque and gavel ceremony followed, marking the leadership transition to Chair Elect Diane Stothard (Eli Lilly and Company). Stothard shared her vision for 2025, centred on deeper engagement with AI, respectful collaboration, and a commitment to uphold ISMPP’s core values. Notably, she announced that AI competency will be incorporated into the CMPP exam.

Prizes were awarded for exhibitor-sponsored competitions, and closing remarks were delivered by Jennifer Ghith (GSK), who extended thanks to Kris Schuler (Pfizer Oncology), the ISMPP staff, boards, sponsors, and programme contributors.

Attendees were reminded that 25 June is MedComms Day and were encouraged to post using #MedCommsDay. Key upcoming meetings include the 2026 European Meeting, to be held 26–28 January in London, and the 2026 Annual Meeting, taking place 20–22 April in Washington, DC.

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 and Day 2 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place in Washington, DC on 12–14 May. Centring on the theme ‘Diversity and Innovation: In Concert’, the meeting highlighted how uniting varied perspectives can drive creativity and progress in medical communications.

A summary of the second day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

You can read our summary of Day 1 here; and our Day 3 summary here.

Summaries of Day 2

Keynote – Advancing health equity through inclusive communication

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Reaching diverse populations is essential for increasing health equity. Medical publication professionals have a role in ensuring reach and accessibility of their materials, so that the existing barriers to healthcare engagement are not reinforced.

The need to build trust

Dr Lisa Fitzpatrick (Grapevine Health) started her presentation by sharing some videos of people talking on the street about what sources they trust for medical information. Instead of doctors, people are often more likely to trust online conversations and relatives; this is partly because the language that doctors use is too technical. Because of this, healthcare professionals are often failing to build links with the communities they are trying to reach with health information.

Health literacy matters

Dr Fitzpatrick reported that low health literacy costs $238 billion annually in outcomes, affecting the ability of individuals to understand and act on the healthcare information they receive. Medical communication professionals often overestimate people’s level of medical understanding, resulting in materials that are incomprehensible to the average person. Dr Fitzpatrick challenged us to think more like the people we’re trying to communicate with and less like academics. She also stressed the importance of listening and responding to feedback, so we understand the barriers that may exist to accessing the information.

Bridging the digital divide

Dr Fitzpatrick felt that the “digital divide” was too often blamed for a failure of reaching people with healthcare information. However, it is clear that people want healthcare information and are actively seeking it. She urged healthcare stakeholders to be bolder in engaging digitally, to counter the risk averse approach that has prevented engagement in online spaces.

Reaching clinical trial populations

We all recognise the importance of diversity within clinical trial populations and the need for all communities to be represented. This requires us to reach out to under-represented communities to gain the trust of patients. This should involve local primary care physicians, who have not traditionally been approached, but are best situated to build these links.

Be creative, be courageous

Dr Fitzpatrick concluded her presentation by urging medical publications professionals to be more creative and courageous in reaching patients via social media. By prioritising plain, inclusive language and health literacy principles, we can demonstrate that we are committed to communities, and can build the trust needed to help people achieve better health engagement and outcomes.

By prioritising plain, inclusive language and health literacy principles, we can demonstrate that we are committed to communities, and can build the trust needed to help people achieve better health engagement and outcomes.

 A chorus of voices: the power of representation in the medical research lifecycle

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Diverse trial participation requires sustained community engagement, respectful communication, and transparent result sharing to ensure equity, trust, and scientific validity.

Diverse representation in clinical trials is vital for equitable healthcare and scientifically valid outcomes. Yet many trials still frequently underrepresent the populations most impacted by disease. Behtash Bahador (CISCRP) and Patrick Gee (iAdvocate) explored the barriers to the inclusion of diverse populations in research and shared strategies for lasting change.

Beyond race and ethnicity: addressing all predictors of healthcare access

Bahador outlined key regulatory milestones, including the FDA’s 1997 guidance to include women and minorities in clinical trials. While encouraging progress has been made in tackling racial and ethnic disparities in trial enrolment, Bahador stressed that other demographic factors—such as socioeconomic status—must also be addressed to truly achieve representative research.

Community first: speaking the language of love

Gee shared a compelling patient perspective, reflecting on how a lack of clear communication shaped his own healthcare journey. He underscored the importance of sustained community engagement and advocated for a more human-centred approach: “Speak in the language of love.” Gee suggested establishing relationships with both community leaders and members through consistent interactions, speaking with love and respect, and understanding the needs the community wants to address.

Initiatives such as use of mobile research education centres and sponsoring of community-led art contests illustrate how respectful engagement can break down barriers. While the global Perceptions and Insights study shows improvements in willingness to participate in trials, awareness remains limited. People most commonly encounter trial information through social media or online advertisements rather than via healthcare providers. Preferred trial formats still include local, in-person options—especially for African American participants—underscoring the need to tailor approaches.

You have to talk to the human being before you address the affliction.

The speakers called for researchers to communicate clinical trial results, involve patients on advisory boards, and invest in communities. As Gee poignantly observed: “You have to talk to the human being before you address the affliction.”

The sound of strategy: data-driven personalised communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective personalisation requires an understanding of HCPs behaviours, preferences, and expertise.

Personalised, data-driven communication can be impeded by factors such as data integration, compliance, or technical barriers. This plenary session explored how leveraging strategic insights into the learning behaviours and preferences of diverse audiences can help communicators to deliver content, which is both engaging, and relevant.

Leveraging strategic insights into the learning behaviours and preferences of diverse audiences can help communicators to deliver content, which is both engaging, and relevant.

Tailoring content for HCPs

Gary Lyons (Coronado Research) opened the session by explaining that healthcare professionals (HCPs) value personalised learning experiences. Describing the segmentation of HCPs based on their functional roles (eg, opinion leader or nurse) and behaviours (eg, ‘eager expert’ or ‘selective implementor’), Lyons reasoned that both the content and delivery of communication should be tailored to the preferences of these segments.

Expanding on this, Shweta Rane (Bridge Bio Pharma) explored how an audience’s level of expertise can be a key consideration in providing context-driven communication. Whilst an opinion leader may prefer to focus on a study’s key outcomes and objectives, an advanced individual may have more interest in survival data. Similarly, using tailored language that is specific to the individual’s knowledge, such as hyper-personalised communication for experts, and generic or plain language for beginners, is an important strategy for creating personalised content.

AI’s role in personalisation 

A live poll showed that whilst the audience considered AI a potentially useful tool for personalisation, many were underconfident about how to achieve this. Lyons described effective prompts as those which convey the tone, language, focus, and level of granularity needed for AI to create content, which is tailored to a HCPs segment. Though he believes we can achieve “very good content using an AI model”, Lyons cautioned that human refinement of AI output is still necessary.

A crescendo in health equity: transparent post-trial publications in tune with evolving expectations

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Post-trial publications should reflect the people behind the data, not just the data itself.

In this parallel session, moderated by Michelle Ouellette (Syneos Health), Jade Tuttle (Syneos Health), Charlotte Singh (Sanofi), and Shailesh Desai (Takeda) brought attention to a growing imperative: ethical and inclusive post-trial engagement, not only to close the loop with participants, but also to build lasting trust with historically underserved communities.

The session explored how medical publication professionals must evolve their practices in line with shifting regulatory expectations. New guidance from agencies such as the FDA and MHRA is making it clear that diversity, inclusion, and transparency are no longer optional in post-trial engagement.

To meet this challenge, publication teams must embed principles of equity early in the clinical development process, and move beyond check-box dissemination towards content that truly reflects patients’ lived experiences. Key strategies discussed included:

• Framing demographic data with context, rather than assumptions, for example avoiding using race as a biological proxy.
• Using inclusive, specific language to reflect multidimensional identities.
• Translating data into narratives that resonate with diverse communities.

A compelling case study demonstrated how trust was built with Aboriginal organisations through timely, transparent updates and community-led review of publications – an approach that prioritised respect, accuracy, and relevance over tokenism.

Ultimately, patients want to know that their participation in clinical trials matters.

Ultimately, patients want to know that their participation in clinical trials matters. Whether through personalised summaries, guidance on next steps, or a simple thank you, post-trial communications should acknowledge contributions and support participants in decision-making processes beyond the study. The session closed with the following call to action for medical publication professionals: ensure your work doesn’t just serve regulators, but also the communities who make research possible.

Measuring the impact of scientific communications in launch excellence: using medical affairs analytics and real world examples to identify best practice (sponsored session by IQVIA)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The successful introduction of a new product hinges on making strategic, data-driven noise where it matters most.

Rebecca Galbraith (IQVIA)  and Joseph B. Laudano (IQVIA) led a sponsored parallel session on how Medical Affairs analytics can sharpen product communication strategies and steer successful launches via data-driven planning.

The evolution of technology means that today’s analytics can do more than just identify communications channels; they can identify channels relevant for a particular topic and audience. Modern tools can help distinguish which congresses and journals offer the best platform for specific data, track audience engagement across therapeutic areas, and even predict the impact of communications strategies through AI and machine learning.

Modern tools can help distinguish which congresses and journals offer the best platform for specific data, track audience engagement across therapeutic areas, and even predict the impact of communications strategies through AI and machine learning.

The speakers shared real-world examples and case studies from launches that achieved ‘Launch Excellence’. Common critical factors for success were clear, evidence-based narratives, targeted dissemination, and strategic collaboration with key medical experts. In addition, the session highlighted the importance of owning scientific themes within a therapeutic area, by not only developing a strong scientific narrative, but also crucially, choosing the right arenas and collaborators to amplify that message. As one speaker put it, “It’s not only noise that matters, but making noise in the right place.”

Medical Affairs teams were encouraged to go beyond traditional dissemination success metrics, for example paper acceptance rates or presentation attendance, and embrace more dynamic tools such as Share of Scientific Voice (SoSV), opinion leader ranking, and clinical adoption analysis.

For Medical Affairs professionals, the message was clear: strategic, analytics-informed communication is essential for maximising engagement and transforming data into impact. 

A toolkit for harmonising publication extenders

KEY TAKEAWAY

• ISMPP’s new toolkit provides clear guidance to standardise the development of publication extenders, enhancing their reach and impact.

As the field of medical communications evolves, the demand for impactful and accessible content grows. In the parallel session led by Ann Overton (Fingerpaint Medical), Hamish McDougall (Sage Publishing), and Lana Vegman (Regeneron), attendees were introduced to a new toolkit from the ISMPP Digital and Visual Committee, designed to harmonise the development and use of publication extenders.

Publication extenders—such as infographics, graphical abstracts, PLS, and video abstracts—are becoming increasingly important for broadening reach and improving accessibility.

Publication extenders—such as infographics, graphical abstracts, PLS, and video abstracts—are becoming increasingly important for broadening reach and improving accessibility. At one publisher, manuscripts featuring extenders rose from just 8 in 2017 to 47 in January 2022. Despite this growth, widespread adoption remains limited by journal restrictions, lack of author awareness, and resources constraints.

The ISMPP toolkit seeks to address these challenges by providing clear guidance on standard definitions, best practices, and development workflows. It encourages early planning of extenders, active author involvement, and the submission of extenders alongside manuscripts for peer review. As Vegman noted, “Change requires a suggested pathway and then adoption of the suggested pathway.”

Part 1 of the toolkit, focusing on the most commonly used extender types, will soon be available through ISMPP eLearn, marking a significant step towards more consistent and engaging scientific communications.

Guided Poster Tour

Attendees also had the opportunity to attend guided poster tours of the following posters:

• Identifying processes and challenges in medical publication planning and execution for small biopharmaceutical companies – Lauren Carroll, Claudia Piano, Sara Duggan, Melanie Sweetlove, Vishal Gor, Donna Kelley, Leonie Pinkham
• Survey results: How high employee turnover in medical communications affects work quality and client satisfaction – Krista Terry, Elizabeth James

PRO tips: development and use of patient-reported outcome measures and publication best practices

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Integrate PROMs thoughtfully and early in study designs to ensure meaningful, patient-focused data collection.

Recognising the central role of patient experience in medical product development, this parallel session featured Mary Kate Ladd (Evidera), Carrie Lancos (AstraZeneca), and Erin Tomaszewski (AbbVie), who shared practical strategies for integrating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical and real-world studies.

What are PROMs and why do they matter?

PROMs capture data directly from patients without clinician interpretation, providing valuable insight into how treatments affect patients’ daily lives. Developing these measures is a rigorous, iterative process involving patient input, expert guidance, and psychometric validation to ensure the tools are reliable, responsive, and capable of capturing meaningful outcomes.

How should PROMs be selected and integrated?

The FDA’s patient-focused drug development guidance highlights 4 key steps:

• Characterise patient experience and unmet needs.
• Select or develop PROMs that assess outcomes meaningful to patients.
• Define clear, quantifiable endpoints to evaluate change.
• Consider the audience when presenting PROM data to ensure clarity and relevance.

Publishing PROM data: key considerations

PROM data differ from clinical trial data, often presenting higher rates of missing values and limited options for imputation. Authors should clearly explain PROM concepts and scoring systems, address copyright and licensing considerations, and ensure data are accessible and understandable to all stakeholders, including patients.

Authors should clearly explain PROM concepts and scoring systems, address copyright and licensing considerations, and ensure data are accessible and understandable to all stakeholders, including patients.

PRO tips

As the session concluded, the speakers shared 4 tips for effective PROM implementation and publication:

• Familiarise yourself with key PROMs in your therapeutic area.
• Collaborate early with PROM colleagues.
• Use clear, consistent language to explain PROM concepts.
• Confirm all copyright and licensing requirements before use or publication.

A pubs rhapsody: is this real pubs life? Is this inequity? Our global landscape, must address our reality

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI can help level the global playing field in medical publications—but only if used thoughtfully, with cultural awareness, robust training, and a commitment to true equity.

Language and legacy

The current medical publications landscape privileges English-speaking authors and Western cultural norms, creating structural barriers for non-native English speakers and under-represented regions. Jonathan Lee (Takeda), Blair Hesp (Kainic Medical Communications), Julie Yaun (Wiley), Yaming Wang (Alphabet Health) and Anne Wong (Roche) described how this ultimately leads to loss of insights from experts in particular regions and presents a barrier to understanding regional clinical practice and patient experiences.

Everyday inequities faced by experts include out of hours calls due to time zone differences, translation fatigue, and journals rejecting country-specific (non-Western) datasets. However inequity goes far beyond this, global health journals are mainly located in high-income English-speaking counties, journal editorial boards lack diversity and pharmaceutical companies prioritise selected countries and regions in their strategy.

The AI opportunity

AI could be a potential equaliser. Tools that assist with translation, editing, peer review, and journal submissions could allow broader participation in global discourse. But concerns remain—AI risks reinforcing bias, misinterpreting cultural nuance, or producing content flagged as AI-generated.

Tools that assist with translation, editing, peer review, and journal submissions could allow broader participation in global discourse.

How can inequity be addressed by publication professionals?

Speakers urged the community to redefine their current understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion within the context of language and culture by:

• including regional journals and conferences in publication plans

• training in AI tools that support global authorship

• recognising AI’s limitations and partnering to improve tools

• shifting language norms to embrace non-Western voices.

In summary, medical publications are skewed towards the predominant Western culture — we must be more inclusive to ensure that patient needs are met. Tools that facilitate input from global experts could help address disparities.

Exploring the CMPP^TM credential: an expert-led interactive session

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• CMPP supports professional growth while providing global recognition and a growing community.
• A new platform makes recertification maintenance more accessible.

CMPP evolution and value 

In a panel discussion hosted by the ISMPP Certification Board, Dana Fox (IPG), Faith DiBiasi (AstraZeneca), Claudia Piano (ApotheCom), and Danita Sutton (ISMPP) explored the development, value, and practicalities of obtaining and maintaining the Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) credential. Since the first certification in 2009, the CMPP programme has grown significantly, with 1,885 professionals certified across 30 countries and 6 continents.

The panellists emphasised the CMPP credential’s impact on career development, describing it as a mark of credibility and a catalyst for confidence. This is reflected in the growing global uptake. “When you pass the test, it’s a great confidence builder,” one speaker noted.

CMPP certification and recertification

To pursue certification, candidates must apply for and sit a comprehensive exam. The exam spans 3 hours, includes 150 questions across 3 domains, and is available either in-person at Pearson VUE centres or online via OnVUE. To aid preparation, ISMPP provides a candidate handbook and access to volunteer mentors, helping to ensure candidates feel supported throughout their journey.

All supporting resources – including guidance documents, exam details, and mentoring options – are readily available on the ISMPP website, ensuring transparency and accessibility for prospective and current CMPP holders.

Crucially, the panel discussed recent improvements to the 5-year recertification process. Professionals can maintain their CMPP status by retaking the exam or through continuing education. Maintenance of the credential through continuing education is now more user-friendly thanks to the introduction of LearningBUILDER, a new certification management platform launched in January 2025.

Aspiring professionals are encouraged to explore the CMPP pathway, not only as a mark of expertise but also as a strategic step in long-term career advancement.

Aspiring professionals are encouraged to explore the CMPP pathway, not only as a mark of expertise but also as a strategic step in long-term career advancement.

Member research oral presentations

Publishing plain language summaries (PLS): successes and challenges 

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Education, clearer guidelines, and publisher support are essential to improve the discoverability and availability of PLS.

Nelma Pertega Gomes (IPSEN) explored current challenges and successes in the implementation of PLS from both author and publisher perspectives.

The author perspective

Of 72 manuscripts published by 1 company (July 2022 to October 2024), 56 included a PLS. Journals not accepting or removing PLS without notice were common barriers. Pertega Gomes encouraged authors to pursue training, select journals that support PLS, and communicate with publishers.

The publisher perspective

Over 3 years, 1 publisher issued 1,053 PLS, advocating for a 250-word text format. The biggest barrier is a lack of understanding among authors and editors about PLS.

PLS discoverability relies on publishers tagging them in PubMed metadata, but many remain behind paywalls, especially in top-tier journals. Although first authors may share PLS through direct contact, most people are unaware of this option. Uniform policies and increased education across journals, publishers and stakeholders are urgently needed.

Uniform policies and increased education across journals, publishers and stakeholders are urgently needed.

Equity in access to information on newly approved drugs: how readily available are plain language summaries?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Improving the discoverability and access to PLS, particularly in top-tier journals, is critical to advancing health equity.

Kaitlin Stanton (Nucleus Global) examined how the availability of PLS for clinical trial publications affects health equity.

Using a dataset of 192 FDA-approved drugs from 2021 to 2024, the study found 219 associated pivotal trial manuscripts; 13 PLS were linked to these manuscripts, with just 10 available via open access. Additionally, 31 manuscripts had corresponding PLS of publications (PLSPs), primarily for drugs approved in 2022 and 2023. PLS availability declined after drug approval, and journals that published PLS were most commonly lower-tier journals.

The persistent use of highly technical language is a significant barrier to equitable access to health information.

Stanton emphasised that the persistent use of highly technical language is a significant barrier to equitable access to health information, stating “the primary focus [of drug companies] appears to be getting clinical data to a clinical audience.” She called for a collective commitment—especially from top-tier journals and industry sponsors—to ensure that trial results are discoverable and accessible to the wider public.

Harmonising the future: generative AI’s effects on medical communications and cross-industry collaborations

KEY TAKEAWAY

• AI can boost speed and scale in publication development but requires collaboration between pharmaceutical companies and agencies to prioritise quality and embrace new working models.

A new tempo for MedComms

The panel comprised a mix of pharmaceutical and agency leaders: Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry), Jennifer Ghith (GSK), Kristyn Morgan (Envision), and Catherine Skobe (Pfizer). In their experience, bold adaptation is needed as generative AI reshapes the medical communications landscape.

AI offers speed, scale, and smart insights, but success hinges on collaborative strategy, ethical guardrails, and robust quality standards.

Proof in practice

Pfizer has already seen AI-assisted tools reduce first-draft times by 40% and, in some cases, overall manuscript timelines by 15%.

Skobe described how Pfizer has already seen AI-assisted tools reduce first-draft times by 40% and, in some cases, overall manuscript timelines by 15%. Applications of AI range from literature searches and summarisation to insight generation and sentiment analysis. Yet, AI uptake remains patchy—only 20% of manuscripts currently use generative tools despite only 7% of authors refusing AI use outright (due to journal or personal concerns).

Tips for AI success

From innovation labs to feedback loops, the panel offered a practical roadmap:

• Embed collaboration into contracts and training.

• Use shared AI tools when appropriate.

• Design collaborative innovation labs.

• Establish transparent best practices for implementation (most impactful).

• Maintain feedback loops (most feasible).

A steep learning curve 

Use of AI can achieve high quality publications that meet ICMJE recommendations. In future, trust, clarity of use, and communication will be essential to maintain quality and preserve longstanding relationships between agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Visit the ISMPP AI resources to keep up to date with industry guidance regarding AI use.

Behind the music: a candid conversation with journal editors and publishers

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Fraudulent submissions are on the rise, PLS lack consistency, and innovation is essential but not equally accessible for all journals.

In a candid discussion moderated by Kate Travis (Retraction Watch), Sam Cavana (Taylor & Francis), Lauren Coligan (PLOS), and Dan Kulp (American Urological Association) lifted the lid on the biggest challenges shaking up medical publishing today. From papermills to the promise (and pitfalls) of PLS.

PLS: good intentions, unclear execution

PLS were created to make science more accessible—but in practice, they’re often overlooked. Authors tend to treat them as an afterthought, and few journals enforce consistent standards. The panel called for:

• Better visibility: PLS should be easy to find and clearly linked to the original article.

• Standardisation: clearer guidelines across journals would improve quality.

• Appropriate review: but by whom—editors, scientists, or patients?

Retractions aren’t always scandalous

One in 500 papers now gets retracted (up from 1 in 5,000), with data manipulation now more readily detectible. Audience polling busted the myth that all retractions signal misconduct. Retractions may stem from honest errors—not just fraud.

Fraud on the rise 

Papermills bribe editors, forge reviewer emails, and resubmit rejected work under different authors. Journals are fighting back—but at great cost. Some are rethinking author-suggested reviewers and flagging suspicious activity early. Moreover predatory journals are also on the rise: view the COPE member list designed to exclude them.

Innovation: uneven but essential

Innovation is vital to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape, but not all publishers are equally equipped to pursue it.

One thing is clear: innovation is vital to keep up with the rapidly changing landscape, but not all publishers are equally equipped to pursue it. Grant-funded journals such as PLOS are not influenced by investors and so play an important role in pushing boundaries. However, commercial journals often hold the keys to scalable innovation thanks to greater resources and investor backing.

Roundtable Sessions

Attendees had the opportunity to participate in roundtables, which covered the following topics:

• EDI as jazz fusion: blending diverse tones to transform medical communications
• Bridging the gaps between global and regional teams for optimal content delivery
• Diversity reporting in publications: composing a clear path for authors through updated guidance
• Symphony of submissions: demystifying video and podcast articles
• The people’s PubMed: empowering patients in the age of misinformation
• Tuning out predatory publishers: how to identify and avoid insidious publication practices
• Conducting the publication planning process with a multidisciplinary team: how to ensure the team is playing the same tune
• Shaping the future of publication metrics
• Social media hits: amplifying your medical publications to reach chart-topping success
• A debut concert of ‘accelerando publications’, by the innovation symphony orchestra (member proposal)
• Empathy as innovation: composing empathetic scientific writing with diverse patient perspectives
• Efficiency: rethinking RFIs for smarter decision-making (ISMPP ORION RFP Task Force)
• A crescendo in health equity: transparent post-trial publications in tune with evolving expectations
• Using medical affairs analytics to hit the high notes in scientific communications
• Translating the score: best practices for incorporating plain language summaries into integrated publication plans
• AI language editing for non-native English speakers – is it the same as generative AI?
• The secrets to working effectively with small pharma and biotech
• Never miss a beat: strategies to address data gaps in pharmaceutical research using patient perspectives
• Hot topics in medical publications

Poster and ISMPP Professional Excellence Awards

The awards presentation began with the announcement of this year’s poster prize winners, celebrating innovation, clarity and forward thinking in medical publications:

• Most reflective of meeting theme: Breaking into medical writing: professional advice for new medical writers – John Vrbensky, Emilie Croisier, Brittany Eldridge, Alyson Rice, Patty Phipps, Sharon Dirksen, Pauline Ng, and Reem Berro.

• Best original research: The battle of voices: AI-generated versus human-narrated podcasts in publications – Rindcy Davis, Peter Benko, Joseph Gallo, Katelyn Frisone, and Pauline Ng.

• Best visual and accessible design: Speaking their language: Healthcare professionals’ use of plain language materials with patients – Hamish McDougall, Isabel Katz, Alexa Holland, and Sarah J. Clements.

• Future forward: Shaping patient involvement in publications: identifying and overcoming barriers through expert insights – Shweta Rane, Dawn Lobban, Trishna Bharadia, and Bradley Meehan.

Following the poster prizes, attention turned to the ISMPP Professional Excellence Awards, where the Society celebrated the exceptional contributions of its members. Awards were presented in the following categories:

• Outstanding Committee Member Award: Tim Stentiford

• CMPP Award: Haruko Isomura

• Rising Star Award: John Vrbensky

• President’s Award: Steve Palmisano and Todd Parker

• Lifetime Achievement Award: Gordon Muir-Jones

Many congratulations to all of this year’s winners!

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 and Day 3 of the meeting? 

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) took place in Washington, DC on 12–14 May. Centring on the theme ‘Diversity and Innovation: In Concert’, the meeting highlighted how uniting varied perspectives can drive creativity and progress in medical communications.

A summary of the first day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

You can read our summary of Day 2 here; and our Day 3 summary here.

Summaries of Day 1

Presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Medical publication professionals should embrace diversity of thought and lead with compassion, clarity, and patient-centred values.
• ISMPP members are encouraged to take an active role in shaping the future of the profession.

Diversity of thought is essential for overcoming blind spots and advancing meaningful science.

Jennifer Ghith (GSK) opened the 21^st Annual Meeting of ISMPP, framing medical publications as a mission rather than just a profession—a mission rooted in compassion and scientific integrity. She urged medical publication professionals to champion values such as clarity and inclusivity, noting that diversity of thought was essential for overcoming blind spots and advancing meaningful science. Her remarks set the tone for the meeting’s theme: “Diversity and Innovation: In Concert.”

ISMPP President Rob Matheis acknowledged the variety of challenges faced by publication professionals but urged members to take pride in the profession’s increasing relevance, celebrating the shift towards patient-centred communication and highlighting the need to focus not just on clinical metrics but on the impact treatments have on people’s daily lives. Using the standard deviation equation as a metaphor, Matheis reminded the audience that variability is intrinsic to science—and that the same holds true for innovation in publications.

Matheis reported that ISMPP remains in excellent health, with a balanced budget, strong membership, and an expanding portfolio of initiatives to further progress the society. Key developments include the introduction of a patient membership programme and enhanced tools for members, such as the ISMPP Expert Directory, ISMPP Learning Hub, and resources on digital publication extenders. He also showcased ways for members to get involved through society committees and collaborative projects.

Matheis concluded with a call for members—new and established alike—to participate actively in ISMPP’s work, reinforcing the strength and unity of the medical publications community.

Keynote – Why does it take 5 to tango in health care? – Dr. Verena Voelter

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The conventional siloed approach to healthcare is duplicative and inefficient and stakeholders need to work together to create value in healthcare. Medical publications professionals can help create these networks.

Breaking down complexity in healthcare delivery

Dr. Verena Voelter, internist and oncologist, and author of It Takes 5 to Tango and The Next Tango: a Patient Guide, discussed how cooperation in healthcare can lead to greater efficiency and improved patient outcomes. Voelter started by describing how silos exist within the increasingly complex world of healthcare delivery. She provided examples of how problems and issues arise when healthcare delivery is viewed from the perspective of only one of the five ‘P’s: patients, providers, pharma, payers, and policy makers. By having a greater understanding of the needs and perspectives of other participants in healthcare delivery, these problems can often be addressed in collaborative ways that are simple and efficient.

The importance of conversations

The first step in fostering this collaborative approach is to start conversations that relate to the needs of the different participants and focused on patient outcomes. Dr Voelter gave an example of where a skincare company was struggling to gain payer approval for the use of their product. They developed a tool that enabled healthcare professionals to send pictures to the payers, shortening time to payer approval.

Dr Voelter also explored the extent to which medical publication professionals can play a role in this process. The majority response from an audience survey was ‘a lot’. Dr Voelter suggested that stakeholder mapping followed by greater engagement with others would help identify unmet needs. An important part of this is asking questions and listening.

Artificial Intelligence and redefining VUCA

On the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, Voelter though that while AI can be a useful tool in healthcare, the questions that are asked must be the right ones, and that comes from having a good understanding of the unmet needs. Regarding the role of collaboration in generating new ideas, Dr Voelter urged us to include more perspectives: ‘Innovation happens at the intersection.’

“Include more perspectives: Innovation happens at the intersection.”

Although healthcare is a complex environment, often characterised by the acronym VUCA: volatility, uncertainty, chaos, and ambiguity, Dr Voelter urged us to become the 6^th ‘P’ in the equation. By harnessing the power of our networks, we can help to bring value, address unmet needs, collaborate and be proactive.

Member research oral presentations

Driving real-time equity analysis to enhance the impact of medical publishing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Achieving equity in medical publishing requires proactive and structured consideration at every stage of the publication process.

In the first presentation of the Member Research session, Laura Watts (Lumanity) introduced a practical framework aimed at addressing disparities in healthcare access from a publishing perspective.

Building on the Cochrane Group’s PROGRESS-Plus framework; a list of characteristics thought to stratify health opportunities and outcomes, and the results of a literature search,  Watts and colleagues developed 40 questions designed to prompt inclusive thinking at each stage of the publication process. Examples include:

• How are the study outcomes determined?
• How is it decided which post hoc analyses to support?
• What criteria are used for nominating peer reviewers?

The study concluded that rethinking medical communications through a practical framework ensures scientific rigour and diverse representation, advancing equity and innovation in global health. Contribution to the further development of this framework was encouraged, with Watts emphasising the attendee’s role in pursuing equity in medical publishing.

Everyone in this room is positioned to change [global disparities in access to healthcare information].

Empathy as innovation: assessing the perception of empathy in scientific writing

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Empathy is associated with improved patient satisfaction and compliance, but no standard metric for assessing empathy in scientific writing exists.

The second talk of the session presented by Naseem Ahmed (Inizio) and Leah Bernstein (Inizio) explored how different characteristics of sample abstracts impacted the perception of empathy amongst seven patients/patient advocates/caregivers, and twenty-two medical writers.

Although both groups rated empathy in scientific writing as somewhat to extremely important, opinions on how this was characterised differed. Patients selected comprehensibility and readability as the most important factors in conveying empathy, while medical writers prioritised empathetic descriptions of disease impact and use of patient-first language.

Further analysis revealed that empathy ratings were highly correlated with tone and patient-first language scores amongst patients and medical writers, respectively. Across all participants, the SMOG index (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) scoring system showed the strongest overall correlation with empathy ratings, suggesting it may serve as a useful starting point in the development of a metric for assessing empathy.

The SMOG (Simple Measure of Gobbledygook) index may be a useful starting point to assess empathy.

Bridging the gap: a roadmap to patient partnerships through practical tools, inclusive language, and impact measurement

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Meaningful and measurable patient involvement starts with early, transparent engagement, supported by practical tools and inclusive language.

The persistent challenges of effective patient engagement in medical publications took centre stage during a dynamic panel session moderated by Catherine Skobe (Pfizer). Joined by speakers Mohammed Najeeb Ashraf (SciVoc Consulting Inc.), Simon Stones (Amica Scientific), and Jennifer Regala (Wolters Kluwer Health), the panel shared actionable solutions informed by recent ISMPP initiatives and insights from member surveys.

Key barriers to patient engagement

The discussion began by exploring common barriers including limited time and resources, a lack of transparency around patient compensation, and language-related challenges. The panel stressed the need to involve patients early, foster open and ongoing dialogue, and accommodate diverse learning preferences to improve engagement outcomes.

Tools and resources to support engagement

ISMPP’s Patient Engagement webpage now hosts a range of practical tools, including a patient lexicon, engagement enablers (coming soon), and impact metrics. Looking ahead, the upcoming PLS Finder tool—a cross-publisher initiative—aims to streamline access to plain language summaries (PLS) via an intuitive search platform.

Inclusive language emerged as a critical foundation for building trust and promoting health literacy.

Inclusive language emerged as a critical foundation for building trust and promoting health literacy. The panel encouraged using person-first language, integrating multimedia resources such as videos and podcasts, and setting clear expectations at the outset of patient partnerships.

Measuring the impact of engagement

To assess the effectiveness of patient involvement, the panel recommended combining quantitative measures—like publication reach and social media engagement—with qualitative feedback through focus groups and interviews. Understanding patient motivations and ensuring comprehensive onboarding were highlighted as essential to achieving meaningful and lasting engagement.

New guiding principles on the horizon

The session closed with a preview of ISMPP’s upcoming patient partnership guiding principles. The principles will provide a best practice resource to publication professionals to support effective and respectful collaborations with patients and advocacy groups.

AI-generated content and copyright – are we synthesizing, sampling or stealing?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Medical publication professionals must prioritise transparency, verify licensing before using generative AI tools, and stay informed as copyright laws evolve.

Gary Lyons (Coronado Research) led a timely discussion on the evolving intersection of AI and copyright in medical publishing. He was joined by panellists Catherine Zaller Rowland (Copyright Clearance Center), Tammy Ravas (University of Montana), and Chris Bendall (Research Solutions). Together, they explored the copyright implications of using generative AI (GenAI) tools and shared best practices for the responsible use of journal content.

The session opened with a review of copyright principles, including Creative Commons licenses, open access publications, and licensing frameworks. A key concern was ownership: while the use of copyrighted materials as inputs for AI tools can violate existing laws, AI-generated outputs currently cannot be copyrighted in the US—though this may change and the law varies across other countries.

Key ethical and legal considerations

• Authorship: GenAI tools cannot be credited as authors; human accountability remains essential.
• Transparency: Disclosing AI use in content creation is critical, and professionals should follow established guidelines, including those from the ICMJE and WAME.
• Terms of service: Users must carefully review platform terms to fully understand data usage and ownership rights.

Towards responsible AI use

It is both possible and essential to balance copyright protection with responsible AI adoption.

As the field of AI in publishing continues to develop, it is both possible and essential to balance copyright protection with responsible AI adoption. The panel recommended the following actions:

• Stay informed: Monitor developments in copyright law and advancements in AI technology.
• Establish clear policies: Develop comprehensive internal guidelines for AI usage and copyright compliance.
• Secure appropriate licensing: Ensure all materials are properly licensed through direct or collective agreements.

The session concluded with an overview of some practical tools designed to support responsible AI use in medical publishing, including:

• Author checklists for incorporating AI responsibly in research and manuscript preparation.
• New resources from the ISMPP AI task force, providing up-to-date guidance on AI-related publishing practices.

Tuning out bias in medical communications: amplifying diverse voices for innovation

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Mitigating bias is essential for maintaining equity and inclusivity in medical research, and requires collaborative approaches throughout the publication process.

Mitigation of bias should be central to medical publication strategies.

 Statistical bias: a case study

To begin this session, moderated by Susanne Ulm (Alphabet Health), Eric Teoh (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety) illustrated the impact of bias in data generation, analysis and interpretation by presenting data comparisons for vehicle crash rates amongst automated vehicles vs. human drivers. Superficially, crash rates for automated vehicles appear up to 4 times greater than those for human drivers. However, when accounting for statistical bias – such as mandatory reporting of minor incidents for automated vehicles – adjusted crash rates may be around 40% lower than those for human drivers.

AI perspectives

Walter Bender (Sorcero) explored the tendencies of large language models (LLMs) to introduce bias or misinformation. Data hallucinations and use of language which is overly promotional, conclusive, or biased – such as LLMs automatically referring to people with breast cancer as women – were just some of the examples discussed, with Bender advocating for both human and AI oversight in mitigating these issues.

LLMs are always certain, sometimes right.

Publishing and Medical Writing perspectives

Tim Mackey, Editor-in-chief of Infodemiology, a Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) publication, and Susanne Elm (Alphabet Health), stressed the potential for introduction of bias at every stage of the research and publishing process. Speaking to his background in both the publishing and research industries, Mackey explored the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors as overseers of generative AI tools, guided by principles outlined in an editorial published in JMIR.

Recommended approaches to mitigating bias

The session concluded with a summary of recommendations to make bias mitigation central to publication strategies. Speakers emphasised the need for hybrid human–AI collaboration, inclusivity, and transparency, and called for a commitment to continuous learning and improvement.

The revised ISMPP Code of Ethics – a harmonization of ethical principles and advances in the field of medical publications

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The ISMPP Code of Ethics sets out the shared global values for medical publication professionals.
• Updates to the code will provide much needed guidance regarding the use of AI, increased patient involvement in publications and the growing need for transparency.

The revised ISMPP Code of Ethics will address the evolving complexities of medical publishing while preserving the core values of integrity, transparency, legal compliance, and objectivity.

 A new era for publication ethics

Thomas Gegeny (Prime Global), Jennie Jacobson (Jacobson Medical Writing), Marcel Kuttab (AstraZeneca), Valerie Moss (Prime Global), and Kelly Soldavin (Taylor & Francis) described the rationale for updating the ISMPP Code of Ethics for the current era of medical publishing. Revisions to the code will address the evolving complexities of medical publishing—clarifying expectations around AI, the growing role of patient advocates and caregivers, and the need for transparency—while preserving its core values of integrity, transparency, legal compliance, and objectivity.

A new user-friendly format

An important change to the code is the new user-friendly format, with topic-based navigation, embedded hyperlinks, and an upcoming interactive eLearn module. The changes reflect input from AMWA, EMWA, journal publishers, and the ISMPP AI Task Force, ensuring broad relevance across regions and disciplines.

Real world dilemmas: the code in practice

The session spotlighted several case studies, with audience discussion focusing on last-minute author changes, journal choice disputes and payment of patient authors. Cases tested the boundaries of current best practices and demonstrated how the code could guide best practice and uphold publication ethics.

Empowering publication professionals

As members of cross-functional teams involved in publication development, medical publications professionals are well positioned to advocate for the highest level of integrity; the updated code will continue to support best practice in the field.

Guided poster tour

Attendees also had the opportunity to attend guided poster tours of the following posters:

• What about sex? A call to action for improved sex and gender reporting in industry-sponsored clinical research: results from a literature review – Liz Southey, Olivia Kager, Elena Mills, Laure Nas de Tourris, Emma Vitalini, Alice Witt, Kate Womersley
• Beyond the surface: How are diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) integrated into research and publication strategies? – Anthea Scothern, Kennedy Shaw, Olympia Gianfrancesco, Charlotte Chapman

Roundtable Sessions

Attendees then had the opportunity to participate in a series of roundtable discussions, covering the following topics:

• Harmonizing diverse perspectives to orchestrate real world evidence publishing
• Composing tuned-in medical content for global audiences
• Orchestrating evidence generation and dissemination: The power of diverse steering committees
• What impact will AI and other market factors potentially have on the way publications are resourced into the future?
• In symphony: How the pub professional can bridge silos in integrated evidence planning across the product lifecycle
• Walking the bassline: A new rhythm for commercial interests and medical ethics in patient authorship
• Broadening the impact of medical communications through audio publication enhancements
• Inclusivity in symphony: Orchestrating an accessible future for healthcare communications
• Author agreements to align roles and responsibilities
• Best practices for effective patient communications in rare diseases
• Inclusivity in dialogue: ED&I considerations for enhancing patient partnerships in publications
• Orchestrating omnichannel success in medical affairs: Building the foundation for HCP engagement
• Raise your voice: Orchestrating cross-publisher PLSP guidance
• SLRs: Evolving requirements to ensure publication
• Open forum discussion for newer medical publication professionals
• Finding the rhythm: Achieving excellence in simultaneous congress presentation and high-tier journal publication
• Overcoming the challenges of a virtual workplace

Why not also read our summaries of Day 2 and Day 3 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• North America, Europe, and Oceania are global leaders for the output of high-quality AI-powered life science research.
• International collaboration may be key to unlocking AI’s full potential.

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in life science research is rising exponentially, from aiding drug development to assisting in the publication process. However, geographical imbalances in AI use could lead to biased models and implications for medical care.

Geographical variation

In an article for Nature Communications, Dr Leo Schmallenbach and colleagues evaluated the geographical spread of AI-related life science research. Their analysis revealed geographical differences in the quantity, quality, and relevance of AI-related life science research. 

• Quantity: The USA and China published the largest share of research, while countries in Africa and Latin America lagged behind. In 2020, China surpassed the USA to lead the world in the number of AI-related life science publications per year, making Asia the continent with the largest cumulative output.
• Quality: Northern America, Europe, and Oceania had a greater proportion of research published in high-ranking journals than Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
• Relevance: Publications from Oceania, Europe, and Northern America were more frequently cited in life science and clinical research articles than those from Asia.

“Analysis revealed geographical differences in the quantity, quality, and relevance of AI-related life science research.”

International collaboration is key to success

The authors also compared research stemming from national versus international collaborations, with international collaborations defined as articles with authorship across 2 or more countries. International research collaborations were 35% more likely to be published in high-ranking journals and received 21% more citations in life science articles.

Speaking to Global Health Otherwise, Dr Schmallenbach concluded that “international collaboration is critical to unlocking the full potential of AI in healthcare” and called for policies encouraging more international partnerships.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• AI-generated peer reviews are increasingly common, but they often lack depth and true scientific insight.
• Responsible AI use can support, but not replace, expert human review, but clear guidelines and transparency are needed to maintain scientific integrity.

A recent article by James Zou in Nature highlights the growing role of AI in peer review, where up to 17% of peer-review comments in a sample of computer-science reviews were AI generated. While tools like ChatGPT can assist with reviewing research papers, they also present challenges that the academic community must address.

The growing use of AI in peer review

Since the rise of ChatGPT in 2022, researchers have observed an increase in AI-generated peer reviews. These reviews are often characterised by a formal, verbose style and often do not refer specifically to the content of the submitted paper. Zou’s study, which analysed 50,000 peer reviews, also found that AI-generated text was more common in last-minute reviews, suggesting that time constraints may drive its use.

Risks and limitations of AI in peer review

While AI can streamline certain peer-review tasks, it cannot replace expert human reviewers. Current large language models (LLMs) struggle with deep scientific reasoning and can often generate misguided assessments or ‘hallucinations’. AI-generated feedback can also lack technical knowledge and may overlook critical methodological flaws. Even when AI tools are used for low-risk applications, such as retrieving or summarising information, they can be unreliable, and all AI outputs should be verified by human reviewers. Platforms like OpenReview, which facilitate interactive discussions between authors and reviewers, offer a promising model for balancing AI assistance with human oversight.

Responsible AI use in peer review

Zou concludes that the adoption of AI in academic publishing is inevitable. Instead of banning AI, the scientific community must establish guidelines for its responsible use.

Instead of banning AI, the scientific community must establish guidelines for its responsible use.

To maintain scientific integrity, journals and conferences should require reviewers to disclose AI usage and develop policies that limit AI’s role to supportive, rather than decision-making, functions. More research is needed to define best practices, ensuring that AI benefits peer review without compromising its core principles.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Publishers are embracing the use of GenAI to support the peer review process.
• AI automation of onerous tasks in the publishing workflow will allow editors to spend more time on activities requiring human expertise.

Could artificial intelligence (AI) define the future of publishing? Publishers are beginning to embrace the use of generative AI (GenAI) to improve peer review processes and uphold research integrity. In an article for Research Information, Dave Flanagan, Senior Director of Data Science at Wiley, explores how GenAI is currently used in publishing and how its integration is enhancing innovation and efficiency for both authors and reviewers alike.

A vigilant approach to GenAI use

Flanagan notes that “AI assists people, it does not replace people”. This is reflected in Wiley’s framework to ensure that their AI tools remain human driven to maintain the integrity of the publication process. Collaboration between publishers and industry bodies such as the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) and the STM Association will help to establish guidelines and standards for GenAI usage.

What is the current guidance on the use of GenAI in publishing?

Authors:

• must explicitly state any usage of GenAI in their paper
• are responsible for the accuracy of GenAI-driven information, including correct referencing of supporting material
• can employ tools to improve grammar and spelling
• are prohibited from using GenAI for the production or alteration of original research data and results.

Reviewers:

• must not upload manuscripts or manuscript content into GenAI tools that could use input data for training purposes, breaching confidentiality agreements
• are permitted to use GenAI tools to improve the quality of written feedback within reports, but must maintain transparency when doing so.

“Using AI tools can free up time for editors to focus on areas demanding human expertise.”

How can AI benefit peer review?

Similar to Papermill Alarm, Wiley’s AI-powered Papermill Detection Service is a useful tool for the early detection of potentially fraudulent papers. Other AI tools in development aim to:

• identify suitable peer reviewers
• automate alternative journal suggestions for unsuitable manuscripts
• streamline the formatting and reference checking process
• enhance the discoverability of published research.

Using AI tools can free up time for editors to focus on areas demanding human expertise.

In the rapidly evolving world of AI, Flanagan believes its use is “integral to the future of peer review”. The author urges publishers and researchers alike to embrace these powerful tools responsibly, keeping the advancement of knowledge at the core.  

————————————————–

The 2025 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in London on 27–29 January. The meeting, which was themed ‘Core Values for an Integrated Age’, saw a record-breaking 418 delegates in attendance.

A summary of the second day of the meeting is provided below to benefit those who were unable to attend the meeting, and as a timely reminder of the key topics covered for those who did.

A summary of the first day of the meeting can be found here.

Summaries of Day 2

Empowering patient voices in authorship: navigating barriers and enhancing support

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Patient authors provide valuable insights, but barriers like submission challenges, lack of support, and compensation concerns must be addressed.
• Collaboration among publishers, industry, and advocacy groups is key to ensuring fair and meaningful inclusion in research.

Moderated by Stuart Donald (Krystelis), this parallel session addressed the challenges and opportunities surrounding patient involvement in medical publications. Ngawai Moss (independent patient advocate) and Laurence Woollard (On The Pulse) represented the patient author point of view, while Emma Doble (BMJ) and Rachel Kendrick (AstraZeneca) provided a publisher and industry perspective, respectively. Discussions focused on the barriers patient authors face, support mechanisms, and ethical considerations regarding compensation.

The patient journey to authorship

For many patient authors, the journey begins with advocacy or participation in clinical trials. However, the transition to formal authorship presents several hurdles. The complexity of the submission process can be overwhelming, requiring knowledge of formatting, peer review expectations, and revisions. Many patients lack mentorship, making it difficult to navigate rejections and feedback.

Time constraints also play a significant role. Many patient authors have health conditions, caregiving responsibilities, or professional commitments that limit their ability to engage fully in the writing process. Additionally, access to medical journals remains a major barrier, as many patients cannot afford subscription fees to read relevant research.

Support from publishers and industry

Publishers like BMJ have been leading the way in integrating patient voices, having published patient-authored articles for over 30 years. Their initiatives include patient advisory panels, editorial board representation, and author guidance to simplify the publication process. To further ease the journey, BMJ assigns dedicated contacts to patient authors, reducing the administrative burden of participation.

The industry perspective on patient authorship is evolving but remains inconsistent. According to Kendrick, companies recognise the value of patient perspectives but often lack standardised approaches to inclusion. Many organisations are now working to establish clearer guidelines and engage patients earlier in the research process, ensuring their voices shape publications from the outset rather than as an afterthought.

Many organisations are now working to establish clearer guidelines and engage patients earlier in the research process, ensuring their voices shape publications from the outset rather than as an afterthought.

Compensation and ethical considerations

The issue of compensating patient authors sparked debate, with Woollard highlighting concerns about accessibility,  and arguing that the elitism in academic publishing creates barriers for patient contributors. He advocated for financial reimbursement, particularly for industry-sponsored publications, and called for fair market value standardisation to ensure consistency in compensation. Providing the counterargument, Kendrick cautioned that direct payment for authorship could introduce bias and reputational risks, particularly in industry-funded research. Instead, she emphasised the importance of transparency and aligning compensation policies with ethical publishing standards.

Recognition and authorship tagging

There is no clear consensus on how to identify patient authors in medical literature. While some advocate for clear labelling to highlight patient contributions, others worry that ‘patient author’ tags could reinforce tokenism. One proposed solution is allowing multiple affiliations, recognising patient authors not just for their lived experience but also for their expertise in advocacy or research.

Some patient authors also prefer anonymous or pseudonymous contributions, protecting them from public scrutiny. To address this, the panel recommended early discussions between patient authors and collaborators to set expectations regarding authorship disclosure and acknowledgment.

The shape of things to come? Beyond the traditional manuscript (a balloon debate)

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• An interactive debate saw the audience vote on the future of scientific communication.
• AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos were proposed as alternative publication formats, but traditional manuscripts prevailed as the foundation of medical publishing.

Rethinking scientific publications: A balloon debate

In this parallel session, a dynamic balloon debate challenged the traditional scientific manuscript’s role in modern publishing. Although scientific papers have moved online, their core format has remained largely unchanged since 1665. Thought leaders advocated for alternative publication formats better suited to today’s digital landscape.

Alternative formats in medical communication

• AI-generated content: Jason Gardner (Real Chemistry) introduced ‘GEMMA’ (Generates Every Medical Manuscript Artificially), arguing that AI could tailor scientific content for different audiences while maintaining the manuscript as a cornerstone.
• PLS: Amanda Boughey (Envision Pharma Group) highlighted data showing high usefulness ratings of PLS among HCPs, emphasising that PLS enhance accessibility without compromising scientific integrity.
• Podcasts & audio articles: Clare Cook (Adis) emphasised the flexibility of audio formats, allowing HCPs to absorb information on the go. Podcasts can incorporate expert voices, patient perspectives, and facilitate nuanced discussions while being peer-reviewed and indexed on PubMed.
• Video explainers: Sam Cavana (Taylor & Francis) underscored the rise of visual media, particularly among younger HCPs. Video explainers can be used to effectively demonstrate mechanisms of action and provide quick, engaging access to complex data.
• Traditional manuscripts: Erin Crocker (Real Chemistry) defended the traditional manuscript as the foundation of medical publishing. She argued that while alternative formats are valuable, they must be grounded in rigorous, peer-reviewed research.

The debate & final verdict

Following audience votes, AI and podcasts were eliminated first, followed by video explainers. The final debate centred on PLS versus traditional manuscripts. While PLS make scientific information more accessible, concerns were raised about maintaining scientific integrity in simplified formats. In the end, the traditional manuscript prevailed.

In her victory speech, Crocker acknowledged the value of integrating multiple formats to enhance scientific communication, advocating for a collaborative future where AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos complement, rather than replace, traditional manuscripts.

Erin Crocker acknowledged the value of integrating multiple formats to enhance scientific communication, advocating for a collaborative future where AI, PLS, podcasts, and videos complement, rather than replace, traditional manuscripts.

Interestingly, in a second running of this session, the audience reached a different conclusion, with PLS emerging as the winning format. This outcome highlights the evolving perspectives on how best to communicate scientific research in an increasingly digital world.

Making meetings better for all

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Inclusion isn’t just about making congresses accessible—it’s about fostering connection and belonging for all attendees.

Recognising that there is still room to improve inclusivity at congresses, this parallel session tackled a critical issue: making scientific meetings accessible to all. The session featured perspectives from experts who discussed the barriers attendees face and the steps needed to improve accessibility and engagements.

Patient perspectives

Matt Eagles (Havas Lynx) shared his personal experiences, emphasising the challenge of feeling connected to the scientific data presented at congresses. He pointed out that accessibility is not just about attending, but also about engaging meaningfully. He recounted how his Parkinson’s makes it difficult to stand for lengthy periods at poster sessions. Simple solutions, such as offering audio descriptions, could bridge this gap. With around one-quarter of the UK population having a disability or alternative needs, improving accessibility would benefit a significant proportion of attendees. Eagles also highlighted how inclusive seating arrangements, such as circular tables instead of rows, discourage segregation and fosters a sense of collaboration.

With around one-quarter of the UK population having a disability or alternative needs, improving accessibility would benefit a significant proportion of attendees

Charlotte Rowan (Caudex) expanded on the issue, noting that economic constraints are also significant barriers for many attendees. Hybrid meetings offer a partial solution, enabling broader participation. She also emphasised that providing logistical support, such as childcare and nursing rooms, could ensure that professionals with caregiving responsibilities can attend. Rowan stressed that organisers often “don’t know what they don’t know,” making it essential to involve diverse voices, including patients, in event planning.

The discussion also highlighted social considerations. Eagles shared how small acts, such as someone offering to get him food at a buffet, made a profound difference in his experience of inclusion. However, significant challenges still remain. Caregiver needs was highlighted as a substantial barrier. Few congresses offer free tickets or subsidies for caregivers, leaving some patients facing double the cost, or simply unable to attend.

What can we do?

Cate Foster (Oxford PharmaGenesis), an author of the ‘Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations’, discussed plans to update these guidelines to include ED&I considerations. The revised guidelines will address practical aspects such as poster accessibility, with easy-to-implement changes like positioning QR codes at a wheelchair-friendly height.

The ISMPP organisers themselves shared their efforts to integrate accessibility considerations into their event planning. This year, ISMPP offered captioning services, they chose venues with good transport links, and avoided major religious and national holidays. The patient support programme, which provides travel assistance to patient advocates, was another successful step towards inclusivity.

Stephen Cutchins (Cvent) highlighted the importance of seeing accessibility as an investment, not a cost. Thoughtful planning increases attendance and engagement, ultimately benefiting event organisers. While virtual and hybrid formats offer accessibility benefits, they lack the networking advantages of in-person meetings. Future improvements could include better virtual networking tools, such as avatars that simulate in-person interactions.

Keynote: the compass within: staying true to core values amidst chaos

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Our core values are shaped by stories we are told from childhood, but we must challenge our inherent beliefs to foster inclusivity—both in society and in AI development.

Wednesday’s keynote speaker Naomi Sesay, Head of Creative Diversity at Channel 4, discussed how we can stay true to our core values in a chaotic world, and explored how our morals can feed into AI.

How do we get our values?

Sesay believes that we’re hardwired to hear stories and they resonate whether we believe them or not. From childhood, we absorb our values through stories told to us at home, at school and by society generally. These stories can be the truth, half-truth, or even untrue, but we accept them through needing to belong to our community.

We’re hardwired to hear stories and they resonate whether we believe them or not. We absorb our values through stories told to us at home, at school and by society generally.

Challenging where truth comes from

Sesay highlighted that our understanding of the truth is based on Western education, but if we fail to seek knowledge from non-Western societies, we risk marginalising them to our detriment. For example, GraphCast is an AI global forecasting tool, which can predict global weather with immense accuracy but has difficulty predicting short-term changes in local weather. In contrast, indigenous communities around the world have developed systems of predicting local weather to a very high degree of accuracy. Could we learn something from them?  

Inclusivity is key for success

One ‘story’ Sesay pointed out that we are taught to accept is Darwin’s theory of evolution. We do not question his theory despite the fact that even he had doubts about certain aspects of it, and Sesay called to attention the original complete title of his famous book, On the Origin of Species: “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. She emphasised this as an example where we must question the stories we are told. We run with Darwin’s concept of ‘survival of the fittest’ in a ‘dog eat dog world’, whereas Sesay argued that nature works best in collaboration and harmony. Indeed companies that prioritise empathy and inclusivity allow their employees to stay true to their individual core values, and this feeling of inclusion fosters collaboration. She emphasised, however, that while companies and governments need to focus on inclusivity, the onus is also on the individual to evolve and challenge our core beliefs.

We need to teach AI inclusivity

“AI is not sentient yet. We are still in control, and we need to talk about ethics now.”

Focusing on how morals feed into a future where AI will become more a part of our world, Sesay highlighted that discriminatory ideas, which we absorb from the stories we are told from childhood, become imprinted in our neurology and are difficult to “unlearn”, much as riding a bike would be. Similarly, AI is currently a “toddler” and we need to be mindful that whatever we teach it now will be retained and impact how it learns. To illustrate this point, Sesay recalled how after giving AI a prompt to “create AI as a sentient being”, it generated a humanoid image with Caucasian features, seemingly by default. This, she believes, is due to AI being used predominantly by the Western world and shows that AI is already not representing all cultures and values equally. She reminds us, however, that AI is not sentient yet. We are still in control, and we need to talk about ethics now.        

Member research oral presentations

What about sex? A call to action for improved sex and gender reporting in industry-sponsored clinical research: results from a literature review

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Enhancing adherence to SAGER guidelines in industry-sponsored trials is crucial for improving the relevance of research findings.

Liz Southey (The Salve Health) shared findings from a study assessing sex and gender reporting in clinical research. Despite their influence on disease progression, treatment response, and healthcare access, these factors are often underreported in industry-sponsored trials—limiting the relevance and applicability of findings.

Just 37% of journals mentioned the SAGER guidelines, and key checklist items were largely overlooked.

The study reviewed articles published between 2023 and 2024 to assess adherence to the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines, introduced in 2016 to improve reporting standards. Of 252 screened studies, only 28 met the eligibility criteria. Alarmingly, just 37% of journals mentioned the SAGER guidelines, and key checklist items—such as defining sex and gender or analysing data by sex—were largely overlooked. Additionally, gender representation among authors was also imbalanced, with only 35% of identified authors being women.

These gaps in reporting risk exacerbating health disparities. For example, women in clinical trials experience twice the rate of adverse drug reactions compared to men, highlighting the need for better reporting of sex differences. Beyond health outcomes, the gender data gap also has significant economic implications. Research by the World Economic Forum suggests that closing this gap could unlock 75 million disability-adjusted life years and generate $1 trillion in annual global gross domestic product.

In closing, Southey emphasised the role of medical publication professionals in advocating for better reporting practices. Promoting awareness and adherence to SAGER guidelines can improve research inclusivity, making findings more applicable to diverse populations and ultimately enhancing healthcare outcomes.

Speaking with one voice: an integrated and innovative planning framework for clear and consistent communications

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Use of an Integrated Medical Communication Plan fosters collaboration, consistency, and alignment in pharmaceutical communications, improving message clarity and engagement with healthcare professionals.

Debra Mayo (Otsuka) addressed the challenges of fragmented pharmaceutical communications, emphasising the need for a unified voice. She introduced an Integrated Medical Communication Plan (IMCP)—a strategy designed to enhance collaboration, maintain consistency, and ensure alignment across teams.

Recent data from Sermo’s HCP Sentiment Series highlights the importance of targeted communication: 81% of physicians prefer relevant, personalised information, and 72% are more likely to engage with such communications. However, inconsistent messaging between medical affairs and commercial teams often creates confusion, reducing clarity and impact.

The IMCP framework is built on four key principles:

• Collaboration: breaking down silos to align messaging across teams.
• Consistency: maintaining a unified scientific narrative across all channels.
• Alignment: synchronising strategy and tactics through structured planning.
• Integration: prioritising strategic value and audience engagement.

To develop and implement the IMCP, a core committee identified key challenges, including siloed teams and inconsistent messaging. Their solution? A centralised platform for information access and knowledge sharing.

They also developed practical tools—spreadsheets, Power BI dashboards, and strategic lexicons—to streamline communication, reduce redundancy, and boost efficiency. At the centre of this initiative is the IMCP dashboard, a central hub where teams can track, update, and refine communication in real time.

The Integrated Medical Communication Plan dashboard is a central hub where teams can track, update, and refine communication in real time.

By embracing an integrated approach, pharmaceutical companies can enhance engagement with healthcare professionals, improve message clarity, and strengthen their scientific voice—ultimately fostering more effective and impactful communication.

A pilot study evaluating the performance of a custom-built large language model-based app that uses reporting guideline items to generate manuscript abstracts

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Conspectus, an AI-powered tool, enhances manuscript abstract preparation with accuracy and positive user feedback. Nonetheless, human validation remains essential.

Niall Harrison (OPEN Health) and colleagues, in collaboration with ARTEFACT, assessed whether Conspectus, a custom-built large language model (LLM)-based application that generates abstracts using reporting guidelines, could enhance the accuracy and appropriateness of manuscript abstracts.

Conspectus generated well-structured, accurate abstracts, and received positive user feedback, though human oversight remains essential.

The workflow followed a structured process:

• Manuscript upload: users upload a manuscript and set key parameters (eg, study type).
• Prompt generation: Conspectus creates a tailored prompt based on user input and relevant reporting guidelines.
• Prompt review: users review and refine the proposed prompt structure.
• Abstract drafting: Conspectus generates an abstract, which users then review and fact-check.

In this pilot study, users tracked their time and assessed usability, while reviewers evaluated abstract quality. The results were promising: 95% of users would recommend Conspectus, and 82% felt it improved abstract preparation. Adoption was swift—81% of users were ready to use Conspectus within 15 minutes, and 61% saw potential time savings. Accuracy was highest for results sections (98%) but lower for conclusions (78%). Appropriateness scores varied across sections, with 69% meeting expectations for introductions and 58% for results, highlighting the need for better prompt refinement and user training.

Limitations included lower accuracy for study types not well-represented in training data and analyses lacking dedicated reporting guidelines (eg, post-hoc clinical trial analyses). Improving briefing forms and prompt training could enhance performance, while future research should explore real-world applications and cases with greater time-saving potential.

How can we collaborate with authors to integrate AI in publication development?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Transparency is essential when integrating AI into the publication process.

The role of generative AI in medical publications is evolving. In this session, industry, agency, and publisher panellists discussed practical tips for AI integration, with a little help from some artificial friends.

The agency perspective

Nina Divorty (CMC Connect) highlighted that the perspective of authors is critical, as they have final responsibility for the publication. Results from an audience poll showed that most participants had not yet used AI in collaboration with authors. Divorty recommended early communication and active discussion with authors to obtain agreement per ICMJE criteria, as well as to confirm the target journal and clarify their guidelines around AI use.

The publisher’s perspective

Stephanie Preuss (Springer Nature) introduced four AI-generated personas (created using video AI video platform Colossyan) to illustrate different author attitudes towards AI:

• The Anarchist: Pro-AI and experimental but may overlook guidelines.
• The Anxious: Wary of AI, deeply concerned about accuracy and ethics.
• The Apathetic: Lacks a deep understanding of AI but is agreeable to its use.
• The Conscious Collaborator: Informed, cautious, and committed to ethical integration.

These personas broadly conformed to attitudes that audience poll participants had encountered in the workplace. Preuss noted that although authors have raised concerns about declaring AI use in publications, many researchers are already using AI for tasks such as translation, fraud detection, and plain language summaries. Preuss stressed that AI cannot be listed as an author, that transparency is key, and there remains a need for “a strong human handshake in the centre”.

“There remains a need for a strong human handshake in the centre [of AI integration].”

The industry perspective

James Dathan (AstraZeneca) acknowledged the huge potential of AI, but that authors deserve transparency around the extent of AI’s contribution to the work, as well as rigorous proof of the technology’s efficacy, or lack thereof. On this last point, Dathan stressed that negative data is also important, that there may be situations where AI use is not appropriate, and that “just because we can doesn’t mean we should”.

Wrapping up, all the panellists agreed that transparency, integrity, and accountability were vital as we enter this exciting new era of integrating AI into the development of medical publications. Revealingly, cautious and curious were the two most frequently occurring words in an audience word cloud poll.

The role of a medical publication professional in 2035: redundancy by robots?

KEY TAKEAWAY

• In the next decade, the role of the medical publication professional may evolve significantly, but core values—ethical storytelling, transparency, research integrity, and effective content dissemination—will remain fundamental.

The future of medical publications: Embracing AI and upholding core values

In a session sponsored by Real Chemistry, moderator Mike Dixon (Healthcare Communications Association) guided participants through an exploration of the future role of medical publication professionals, focusing on how the integration of AI will shape their responsibilities. Reflecting on the past decade, Dixon prompted attendees to consider whether the fundamentals of their profession have shifted and how they might evolve by 2035.

Ann Gordon kicked off the discussion by addressing the potential day-to-day changes AI could bring and what professionals might seek from their roles in the future:

• AI integration: From the advent of conversational AI like ChatGPT in 2022 to the possibility of autonomous agents, AI is set to become integral to daily tasks.
• Technological advancements: The emergence of AI-powered tools, such as wearable devices providing instant information and portable virtual workspaces, will enhance storytelling capabilities and elevate data visualisation techniques.
• Evolving influencer profiles: Professionals will need to collaborate with digitally savvy opinion leaders who have significant influence in the digital and social media landscapes.
• Sustainability and accessibility: Utilising holographic technology for virtual meeting attendance can promote both sustainability and accessibility.

Gordon emphasised that while technology will evolve, core values like ethical storytelling, transparency, and unbiased information dissemination will remain constant. Medical publication professionals will play a crucial role in guiding healthcare providers toward trustworthy content.

Medical publication professionals will play a crucial role in guiding healthcare providers toward trustworthy content.

Considering the entry of Generation Alpha into the workforce by 2035, a poll revealed that most participants believe this cohort will experience digital fatigue and seek more human interaction to stay engaged and build strong working relationships.

Next up, Catarina Fernandes (Johnson & Johnson) offered a pharmaceutical industry perspective, highlighting potential future opportunities and challenges in areas such as job descriptions, technological adoption, evidence dissemination, and collaboration. Key takeaways included:

• Adaptability: Professionals must be flexible, adept with new data forms, and open to innovative dissemination methods.
• Ethical standards: Maintaining strict ethical standards involves ensuring transparency in research, upholding a robust peer review system, promoting inclusivity, avoiding bias, and fostering trust within the scientific community.

Hamish McDougall (Sage) discussed the publisher’s role in 2035, focusing on research integrity and content dissemination. McDougall noted that while content will become more flexible and audiences more diverse, the core responsibilities of publishers—ensuring research integrity and effectively disseminating content—remain unchanged.

Dixon concluded the session by stressing that while AI will not replace medical publication professionals, those unwilling to collaborate with AI may be surpassed by those who do.

Closing remarks, raffles, and poster awards

Chair of the Programme Committee, Mithi Ahmed-Richards, and Vice-chair, Catherine Elliott, concluded the 2025 European Meeting of ISMPP with reflections on this year’s theme, Core Values for an Integrated Age. They also announced and congratulated this year’s poster prize winners:

• Most Reflective of Meeting Theme: Characteristics of qualitative-based patient experience data publications in rare diseases, neuroscience, and oncology – Sarah Thomas, Oleks Gorbenko, Jacqui Oliver, Catherine Elliott, Simon R. Stones, Charles Pollitt
• Best Original Research & Most Visionary Research: Establishing a lay review panel to ensure medical research accessibility – Oleks Gorbenko, Nathalie Cannella, Marta Moreno, Geoff Kieley, David Gothard, Jo Gordon, Sarah Thomas
• Best Visual Communication: Speaking their language: Healthcare professionals’ use of plain language materials with patients – Isabel Katz, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Sarah J. Clements

Ahmed-Richards and Elliott extended their gratitude to the Meeting Programme Committee, presenters, sponsors, partners, and exhibitors for their contributions. Finally, they reminded attendees that registration is now open for the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMPP, taking place 12–14 May 2025 in Washington, DC.

Why not also read our summaries of Day 1 of the meeting?

——————————————————–

Written as part of a Media Partnership between ISMPP and The Publication Plan, by Aspire Scientific, an independent medical writing agency led by experienced editorial team members, and supported by MSc and/or PhD-educated writers.

——————————————————–