The 2025 ISMPP Academy takes place on November 13-14 in Boston.

REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until October 30, 2025

ISMPP’s 2-day interactive educational academy provides real-world solutions and focuses on implementation across four critical areas: Future of Work (AI), Compliance and Clarity, Operational Success, and Communication Impact. View the full agenda online!

Topics covered include:

• Publication planning
• Visual communications
• GPP and publication policies/SOPs
• Plain language summaries
• Real-world evidence
• Practical AI

 Academy features:

• 6 unique active learning sessions – for both newer professionals and experienced professionals
• Evaluate case studies
• Group problem-solving
• Certification: earn up to 10 CMPP credits
• Networking: two days of face-to-face professional connection
• Solutions: visit the Tabletop Exhibit Gallery showcasing medical communications and technology providers

PLUS Technology Demos, Exhibitors, Networking, and More!

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER BY OCTOBER 30!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Structured publication planning is no longer optional in MedTech—it’s a regulatory, clinical, and commercial imperative.
• Pharma-derived models need to be adapted to suit the realities of device, diagnostic, and software-based innovations.
• ISMPP offers cost-effective, flexible tools to upskill teams and foster peer learning—especially where internal capacity is limited.
•  Companies that commit to educating their staff on the foundations of publication planning can gain visibility, credibility, and strategic advantage.
• Partnering with publication professionals and/or agencies allows companies to implement strong publication practices now, while building internal knowledge and capacity for the future.

Introduction: MedTech at a crossroads

The medical technology (MedTech) sector is evolving rapidly, the result of both design innovations and increasing regulatory requirements. These dual trends have transformed nearly all areas of the industry, which spans surgical devices, diagnostics, digital health platforms, and increasingly, software and artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tools.

Yet there’s one area where MedTech appears to remain more static: publication practices. This isn’t due to any inherent limitations within the industry, but rather because most MedTech companies—especially small to mid-sized ones—simply lack the internal infrastructure to support strategic, consistent publication planning and execution.

As outlined in a previous article focused on small pharma and biotech companies, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) plays an essential role in equipping publication professionals with the tools and community they need to stay ahead. That same opportunity—and urgency—now applies to MedTech.

“There is growing recognition that MedTech products bring enormous value to healthcare, and with that has come increasing scrutiny. To keep pace, companies must apply the same innovative spirit to publication practices as they do to product development. Those that invest in building publication planning knowledge and resources now can set the standard for the field going forward.”
– John Watson, The Manuscript Agent

The publication planning gap in MedTech

Unlike the pharmaceutical sector, many MedTech companies don’t have dedicated publication teams. Instead, evidence dissemination responsibilities often fall to medical affairs or regulatory staff juggling multiple roles. Although at odds with good publication practice, and because of the unique MedTech environment, commercial roles are sometimes involved as well. As a result, publication efforts may be reactive—tied solely to product launches or regulatory milestones—and lack long-term strategic vision. When publication plans exist, they are often developed without input from all relevant stakeholders, potentially resulting in redundancies or even conflicting messages.

Adding to the complexity, traditional pharma-derived publication models don’t map neatly onto MedTech lifecycles. MedTech products tend to iterate faster, making it harder to generate long-term evidence. Whereas pharma hinges on large randomized controlled trials, MedTech evidence generation more often depends on an array of smaller studies, retrospective analyses, registries, and other pragmatic data sources that balance scientific rigor with cost constraints. These differences can be especially challenging for smaller companies with limited bandwidth for structured publication planning.

A survey conducted by the ISMPP Small Companies Education Committee found that professionals in small and device-focused companies cite lack of time, training, and structured guidance as top barriers to publication planning. (1)

Regulatory and market pressures are rising

Regulatory requirements facing the industry have intensified, particularly with the implementation of the European Medical Devices Regulation (EU MDR). Where companies were once able to rely on data with comparable devices, they now must provide robust clinical evidence with their own technologies. This shift has also increased scrutiny of post-market surveillance, safety reporting, and health economic data from regulators, payers, and clinicians.

Meanwhile, the MedTech industry is innovating at an accelerated pace. The number of FDA-cleared AI and machine learning-enabled devices surpassed 1,000 in 2024, with software-based tools leading the charge. These novel products raise complex new questions around algorithm transparency and evidence generation, placing further emphasis on the need for timely, well-structured publications.

In short, MedTech companies face an unprecedented imperative to generate and communicate high-quality data on their products. Just as they have innovated with their products, so too must they adopt strategies for successful evidence dissemination.

Whether launching a Class III implant or a Class I digital tool, companies must demonstrate credibility—and transparent, peer-reviewed publications remain the most effective way to do so. By strengthening their foundational knowledge around publication planning now, MedTech teams can do more than keep pace with change—they can lead it.

What MedTech can gain from stronger publication planning

Publication planning is not just about compliance; it’s a strategic investment in building credibility, commercial success, and trust. With even modest investments, MedTech companies can:

• ensure clinical evidence is disseminated through credible, peer-reviewed channels
• boost HCP confidence and product adoption
• build long-term visibility for products and platforms
• support regulatory and reimbursement submissions.

Better publication planning strengthens the story around a product and helps ensure that story is heard.

Building skills and capacity: how ISMPP can help

ISMPP offers education and training especially relevant to those navigating the complexity of MedTech communications. For companies without formal training programmes or clear internal publication processes, ISMPP serves as a practical partner and knowledge hub.

Members benefit from:

• training on Good Publications Practice (GPP 2022)
• guidance on authorship, transparency, and AI use in writing
• access to ISMPP U webinars, podcasts, and the CMPP certification
• peer connection via ISMPP Connect, which includes professionals working in diagnostics, devices, and software settings.

ISMPP’s Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) credential is recognized globally and is increasingly valued by employers and partners in the MedTech sector.

Partnering with experts: agency support for publications

MedTech companies aren’t on this journey alone: many choose to partner with medical communications agencies who bring expertise, familiarity with compliant publication processes, and therapeutic area knowledge—without requiring additional internal hires.

This hybrid model works especially well when:

• teams are stretched thin
• publication needs must scale quickly
• expertise in regulatory-driven publication formats is lacking.

Strategic partnerships allow even smaller companies to produce high-quality, compliant publications that support key business objectives.

This article was developed on behalf of the ISMPP Small Companies Outreach Committee by John Watson (The Manuscript Agent), Tony Ferrar (Porterhouse Medical), and Anne-Clare Wadsworth (Amica Scientific). Please note, the authors used ChatGPT-4o (OpenAI) to support the collation of resources and to generate an initial outline and draft of the manuscript. The authors reviewed, edited, and take full responsibility for all subsequent content and the final submitted version.

References

(1) Carroll L, Duggan S, Sweetlove M, Gor V, Kelley D, Pinkham L, Piano CA. Identifying processes and challenges in medical publication planning and execution for small biopharmaceutical companies. Presented at: International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Annual Meeting; 12–14 May 2025; Washington, DC

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ISPEP’s white paper argues that pharmaceutical companies must move beyond superficial patient centricity to establish genuine, long-term collaborative relationships.

• ISPEP presents 5 strategic recommendations to transform how industry engages with patients throughout drug development lifecycles.

The International Society for Patient Engagement in Publications (ISPEP) has published a white paper challenging pharmaceutical companies to honour their commitments to meaningful patient involvement. Authors Chris Gray, Rob Wyer, and Steve Clark argue that while many organisations have embraced patient-centric rhetoric, implementation often falls short and risks alienating the very people it aims to support.

The authors highlight a growing disparity between pharmaceutical companies’ public commitments and patients’ experiences. Survey data reveal a stark perception gap: while 72% of industry employees agreed with the statement “My company communicates with care and compassion, transparent and unbiased information on diseases, treatment options, and available resources”, only 32% of patients agreed.

“Survey data reveal a stark perception gap: while 72% of industry employees agreed with the statement “My company communicates with care and compassion, transparent and unbiased information on diseases, treatment options, and available resources”, only 32% of patients agreed.”

The authors highlight that regulatory authorities are ahead of pharma when it comes to patient engagement: both  the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency expect patient involvement in the drug development process and consult directly with patient groups and individuals.

Five strategic priorities for revolutionising patient collaboration

The white paper presents a comprehensive framework built around 5 key recommendations:

1. Maintain continuity across the lifecycle

Organisations should ensure lifecycle continuity by establishing sustained partnerships that transcend departmental boundaries. Many companies fail to maintain relationships once specific studies conclude, despite patients requiring ongoing support. In addition, patients may become frustrated when requests come from multiple departments.

2. Build a legacy

Companies should establish enduring impact through collaborative, multi-sponsor initiatives that protect patient communities from development setbacks or shifting corporate priorities.

3. Elevate patient advocacy

Pharmaceutical companies must champion patient representation internally by embedding patient perspectives within core business strategy with executive leadership backing.

4. Measure and report progress

Companies should implement robust systems to track and communicate outcomes using comprehensive evaluation frameworks that combine qualitative insights with quantitative metrics.

5. Challenge, reinterpret, and rewrite SOPs

Finally, organisations must reform standard operating procedures (SOPs) that may inadvertently restrict meaningful patient collaboration.

The authors conclude that as patients are the end users, they ultimately determine the success of new therapies. Developing and maintaining patient collaborations will help to overcome the disconnect between patient and pharma needs and improve outcomes for all stakeholders.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Confusing the meaning of ‘significance’ in scientific research can lead to misinterpretation of findings.
• Differentiating between statistical significance and scientific importance is key when communicating scientific research.

Statistical significance and scientific importance are key aspects when communicating scientific research, but are often confused. This can prompt misleading interpretations of findings. An article by Professor Jane E Miller in Open Access Government explores the issue and provides guidance on improving clarity in scientific communication.

Statistical significance versus scientific importance

Prof. Miller suggests that the confusion of these terms is likely due to differences in the meaning of ‘significance’ in statistics versus everyday use, where it can mean ‘big’ or ‘important’. ‘Statistical significance’ means that a statistical test (measured by a P value) found evidence of an effect based on sample data, ie, that the result is unlikely to be due to random chance. Going further, Prof. Miller notes that for a result to have ‘scientific significance’, it must have real-world applications, such as clinical or educational relevance, or be useful for informing a decision, such as the design of an intervention.

How can scientific writers effectively communicate the significance of their results?

Prof. Miller suggests that scientific writers should explain scientific importance before statistical significance, to ensure that readers consider all aspects. Whether the significance being described is scientific or statistical should always be clarified.

“Prof. Miller suggests that scientific writers should explain scientific importance before statistical significance, to ensure that readers consider all aspects.”

Prof. Miller outlines some key dimensions to include when communicating scientific importance:

• the size and direction (eg, “positive” or “inverse”) of the effect
• the study sample (“when, where, who”), and if the results of the study can be generalised to the population
• other factors that may explain the association (ie, confounding)
• whether causality can be inferred from the research
• whether the observed outcomes are sustainable.

Next, communicating statistical significance must start with identifying the target audience. Prof. Miller advises paraphrasing ‘statistical significance’ and explaining the likelihood of the observed results occurring by chance when writing for lay audiences, and considering replacing ‘statistically significant’ with ‘statistically discernible’ for statistically trained audiences.

Prof. Miller concludes that by applying these principles, statistical communication in science can be improved.

————————————————–

As the demand for expedited publications continues to rise, scientific publishers face growing pressure to balance speed of publication with rigour of review. Rapid publication timelines – once an exception – are becoming more common, with manuscripts moving from submission to publication in a matter of weeks rather than months. How can publishers uphold quality standards in compliance with industry guidelines under such time constraints? Following his involvement in the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, The Publication Plan caught up with Sam Cavana, Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group to find out. 

During the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, we heard that fast-track publications are becoming increasingly common, with timelines shrinking significantly. What do you see as the key factors driving the uptake of fast-track publication options? 

We run a regular survey at Taylor & Francis to understand the key reasons for choosing accelerated publication. The primary reasons are:  

• to publish on novel topics to get the information out to the research community as quickly as possible  

• to hit key deadlines for publishing the work, eg, to impact key discussions scheduled with healthcare authorities, to present at a conference, to time it to coincide with other planned publications  

• to make the content available and accessible as quickly as possible when there is a direct impact on patient care 

• to obtain peer review comments as quickly as possible to enable extra time for discussion of revisions and other publication planning activities.  

Bringing a scientific manuscript from inception to publication is a complex process with many steps and contributors. How do publishers maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific literature when implementing fast-track publication processes? 

Taylor & Francis ensures that publication of all manuscripts, whether via the standard track or accelerated track, is of the same high quality, integrity, and reliability. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes, and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other. The key differences are that reviewers are usually found more quickly for accelerated papers, those reviewers are given shorter deadlines to complete their review, and, once peer reviewed, editors will assess those papers more promptly to make a decision.   

“Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other.” 

Beyond the publisher’s role, authors and industry scientists clearly have a key part to play in the process. What are some of the common pitfalls they encounter during fast-track publication development? What guidance would you offer to ensure a smooth experience?  

We would recommend that all content is complete at submission, with any authors available to provide responses in a timely manner. This includes at both revision and proof stage. Ensure decisions regarding copyright and open access are made up front, so there are no discussions that may delay timely publication. Don’t hesitate to contact the publisher if there are specific requirements, dates you need to publish by, or questions you need to ascertain prior to submission.

Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are beginning to influence various aspects of scientific publishing. Could technologies like these enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review in fast-track publishing? 

Taylor & Francis is already using AI tools to help us match some submitted manuscripts with appropriate reviewers. Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so this technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process. We also use specialist AI-powered tools like CrossRef Similarity Check and Image Twin to perform checks on submitted manuscripts, identifying potential cases of plagiarism or image manipulation for further investigation. Beyond this, Taylor & Francis doesn’t have plans to use AI in the actual reviewing of research articles, and editorial decisions will always be made by a human. Our AI policy is that reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts they are reviewing to generative AI systems, as doing so may pose a risk to confidentiality and rightsholders’ intellectual property.  

“Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so [AI] technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process.” 

 When publications move through peer review at an accelerated pace, maintaining reproducibility and transparency could be challenging. What measures are in place to promote these standards in research findings published through accelerated channels? How do publishers address potential ethical challenges that may arise from the pressure to publish rapidly, such as conflicts of interest or data integrity issues? 

All papers follow COPE, ICMJE, and GPP 2022 guidelines, this wouldn’t change based on the speed of review. All papers are subject to the same policies in accelerated publication as in traditional publication. Open research practices are a key element in the promotion of reproducibility and transparency. Our data sharing policies encourage researchers to deposit their data in a repository before submission, so the availability of these data shouldn’t be impacted by the speed of the review and publication process. Any conflicts of interest would be picked up in Taylor & Francis’ screening processes and data issues picked up in the peer review process. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change editorial decisions or impact the screening processes. 

Elsewhere at the ISMPP meeting you championed the role of video explainers in the dissemination of scientific information. With visual media gaining popularity – especially among younger healthcare professionals – is it possible to integrate enhanced publication content types into fast-track publications to enhance engagement and impact? 

Accelerated publication for video articles and abstracts is available. To ensure accelerated publication timelines are met, we suggest providing a storyboard at submission rather than the final video. If there are comments on the video, it may mean that the video will need to be recorded again.  

The Video Journal of Biomedicine offers an accelerated publication option for standalone video articles. This follows the same process as a traditional manuscript. With video articles or abstracts, make sure that the authors are aware that they need to be available for the revision of the storyboard and that after provisional acceptance of the storyboard, no editorial changes can be made once the video has been created.  If the authors are creating the video, ensure that you have all stakeholders aware of the timelines for the accelerated publication route, so no delays are introduced at this stage.  

Internally, we have seen extenders significantly increase views of an article, and we look forward to presenting our findings in a poster at the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMPP in Washington, DC. 

Looking ahead, how do you see fast-track scientific publishing evolving? What criteria should be used to determine when fast-tracking is appropriate – and when a more traditional timeline is the better option? 

Taylor & Francis has offered accelerated publication in a small list of biomedical titles for over 15 years, and we will be expanding this service to a few select titles in our Medicine & Health portfolio in 2025 to offer a wider range of options to our customers in the industry. Taylor & Francis doesn’t have any plans to introduce this service to journals within other subject areas. As for whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, that decision will be one for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company, rather than us. Our role is to provide publishing options to the community and to ensure that the highest standards of publishing excellence are maintained.  

“Whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, [is a] decision for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company” 

 Sam Cavana is Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group and can be contacted via LinkedIn. All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Sam Cavana and do not necessarily represent those of Taylor & Francis. 

—————————————————–

The 21^st Annual Meeting of ISMPP takes place May 12 – May 14 at the Grand Hyatt in Washington, D.C.

 REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until April 25, 2025

The theme for ISMPP’s milestone 21^st Annual Meeting is Diversity and Innovation: In Concert. This meeting gathers diverse professionals to inspire creativity, foster innovation, and advance medical communications for a more inclusive and dynamic future.

Don’t miss the premier medical communications and medical publications conference of 2025!

Topics covered include:

• Artificial Intelligence
• Omnichannel
• Plain Language Summaries
• Best Practices
• Data Visualization
• Publication Planning
• Digital Extenders
• Metrics and Analytics

9 Educational Workshop Offerings – 4 NEW Topics this Year! For both newer professionals and experienced professionals. Spaces are limited so sign up today!

Keynote Speakers, Member Research Posters/Oral Presentations, Exhibitors, Receptions, Networking, Awards, and more!

Company Team Discount/Champion Sponsorship for 10 Team Members or More!

Please contact exh-spon@ismpp.org for a discount code.

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER TODAY!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Data sharing is an essential component of open science. The EQUATOR executive are calling for its inclusion in reporting guidelines.

Mandatory data sharing has been gaining pace in recent years, with data underlying US federally funded research soon needing to be made available immediately on publication. Since its inception in 2006, the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network, best known for hosting an online library of research reporting guidelines, has been an important advocate for improving the quality and transparency of medical research reporting. Now, in a recent article for The BMJ, the EQUATOR executive group explain how data sharing could be made standard practice as the next goal for open science.

Are current reporting guidelines sufficient?

The authors describe data sharing as a broad concept, from study registration to protocol availability, then data availability. While many stakeholders have emphasised trial registration and transparency, the requirement to discuss data sharing is missing from most reporting guidelines. A notable exception is a 2020 addition to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist.

“While many stakeholders have emphasised trial registration and transparency, the requirement to discuss data sharing is missing from most reporting guidelines.”

The EQUATOR executive encourage new or updated reporting guidelines to cover data sharing, to ensure authors:

• describe data sharing in protocol and results publications
• are encouraged to share data
• report on items linked to data sharing, like sharing of code and protocols.

What can authors do now?

While awaiting formal guidance on reporting data sharing, the EQUATOR executive suggest authors include the following in publications:

• data definition, collection, and management methods
• manuals or videos used in delivering the intervention
• the statistical analysis plan, including any coding
• any barriers to sharing data and other materials from the study.

The EQUATOR executive also encourage authors to adopt the findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) and collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics (CARE) principles when sharing data.

What’s next?

Beyond reporting guidelines, the authors signpost journal policies, funder expectations, and research assessment criteria as avenues to drive increased data sharing. They also point to data management and sharing plans, and suggest an opportunity for the EQUATOR Network to provide guidance on reporting these in a standardised way to further boost data sharing.

————————————————–

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 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.

Summaries of the second day of the meeting can be found here.

Summaries of Day 1

Chair’s welcome, CMPP update and ISMPP presidential address

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Attendance and engagement at ISMPP EU continue to grow, reflecting an active and collaborative community of medical publications professionals.
• ISMPP’s core values are fundamental as the industry embraces innovation and integrates new technologies.
• The CMPP programme celebrates 15 years of excellence, with increased global representation and accessibility.

Mithi Ahmed-Richards (Taylor & Francis) opened the 2025 European Meeting of ISMPP, recognising the continued growth of the meeting with increasing numbers of abstract submissions and poster presentations. Acknowledging the collaborative spirit of the medical publications community, she emphasised how ISMPP and its members drive advancements in publication practices and ultimately improve patient care. Noting the meeting’s theme of Core Values for an Integrated Age, Ahmed-Richards stressed that trustworthiness surpasses skill and that core values must be demonstrated through actions.

Ann Gordon (Chair of the ISMPP Certification Board) provided an update on the Certified Medical Publication Professional (CMPP) programme, which is celebrating 15 years of professional excellence in medical publications this year. The CMPP community has grown to 1,659 professionals across 31 countries, spanning 6 continents, with South America most recently represented. Achievements in 2024 included the launch of the LearningBuilder certification platform, a significant rise in CMPP mentors, and enhanced accessibility through financial assistance for exam fees. Gordon reinforced the value of the CMPP credential in demonstrating expertise, leadership, and ethical publication practices.

Expanding on the meeting’s theme, Rob Matheis (ISMPP President and CEO) emphasised the importance of balancing core values with innovation, citing the need to consider evolving information sources beyond traditional medical journals. He outlined ongoing key initiatives of the society, including patient membership programmes, a renewed presence in the Asia-Pacific region, and the hosting of #MedComms Day. Matheis concluded with a call for members to actively engage in ISMPP activities to further strengthen the community of medical publication professionals.

Keynote: Finding core values in an integrated and sustainable world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Andy Pag’s sustainable travel experiments highlight the power of incremental progress and the importance of clear communication in environmental advocacy.

Exploring sustainability: insights from Andy Pag’s adventures

Former BBC journalist and engineer Andy Pag shared his two-decade journey of pioneering sustainable travel. Though often labelled an environmentalist, Pag considers himself an experimenter seeking practical solutions.

Innovative expeditions

Pag’s first major sustainability experiment involved driving from London to Timbuktu in an old Land Rover powered by biodiesel made from waste chocolate. This was considered the first-ever carbon-negative expedition. He later organised the “Grease to Greece” rally, where participants scavenged waste vegetable oil from restaurants to fuel their cars, successfully completing the journey from London to Greece without fossil fuels.

Building on these experiences, Pag set out to travel around the world using sustainable transport. He restored an old school bus and adapted it to run on waste oil, successfully completing the journey while highlighting the potential of alternative fuels.

Lessons in communication

Pag transitioned from experimenter to advocate, emphasising the need for precise messaging. He cautioned that achievements, if not communicated thoughtfully, can be misinterpreted—an insight particularly relevant to medical publication professionals.

The Hero’s journey and scientific method

Pag drew parallels between the hero’s journey—a narrative arc involving a call to adventure, challenges, and transformation—and the scientific method. Both involve exploration, overcoming obstacles, and sharing newfound knowledge.

Trust and incremental progress

Throughout his travels, Pag learned to trust in the kindness of strangers, such as a voluntary military escort in Afghanistan. He advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Personal choices for reducing carbon footprint

Pag suggests three actions: making sustainable lifestyle choices, supporting policies through voting, and fostering scientific literacy. His experiences serve as a testament to the impact of innovation, communication, and small steps in tackling environmental challenges.

Pag advocates for celebrating small advancements in sustainability, recognising that incremental steps collectively lead to significant progress.

Looking beyond traditional authorship: partnering with patients for inclusion in scientific conferences

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The role of the patient at scientific conferences has evolved, from exclusion to tokenism to leadership.
• Patients are not conference “guests”, but expert partners helping to shape the future.

The time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

The first plenary session of the day explored the evolution of patient participation in scientific conferences, from exclusion to tokenism to active leadership. One such leader is patient advocate Mercy Shibemba, who shared her experience of growing up with HIV and the associated stigma. She highlighted the principle of “Nothing for us without us”, and underscored that seminal campaigns such as Undetectable = Untransmissible would not have been possible without meaningful patient engagement.

Amanda Boughey (Envision Pharma Group) reflected on the evolution of patient engagement at ISMPP itself, noting the significant progress made since she started working in MedComms 20 years ago. However, challenges remain: results from an interactive quiz during Boughey’s presentation revealed that the biggest perceived barrier to patient involvement at scientific conferences is concerns around compliance.

Enter self-described “compliance nerd” Rina Newton (Code Clarity). Newton clarified some of the misconceptions surrounding patient participation at scientific conferences, for instance, while EU regulations prohibit direct-to-patient drug advertising, this does not preclude patients from attending conferences, where they may:

• learn about trial findings
• interact with other attendees
• engage with medical stands
• ask questions about medicines
• speak at symposia
• give advice on advisory boards.

Simon Stones (Amica Scientific) stressed the need for stakeholders to proactively argue for patient involvement at conferences, citing the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (EULAR) congress as an example of good practice. Specifically, we should:

• move beyond tokenism—patients should not be viewed as congress “guests”, but as equal partners shaping the future
• invest in patient leadership
• build a culture of respect by normalising patient involvement
• measure impact.

It should be noted that patient-driven impact metrics may differ from conventional measures of success. Shibemba gave the example of a study of youth-friendly health services for people with HIV that failed to achieve its primary outcome (viral suppression), but was considered successful from the participants’ perspective as it demonstrated the importance of integrated health services.

Pascale Cavillon (Ipsen) explained Ipsen’s patient-driven approach starts with the “why”, using early engagement with patients to establish their unmet needs, before collaborating with patient communities to translate science into meaningful solutions. Cavillon highlighted initiatives such as immersive experience training for healthcare professionals to highlight the lived reality of rare disease.

All panellists agreed that the time has come to evolve beyond tokenism and acknowledge patients as experts in their own right.

Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Fast-tracking publications should be reserved for cases of strong justification, and require early, meticulous planning across pharma teams, authors and journals to ensure success.

Expedited publications have become increasingly common, with timelines shrinking from the standard 6 months to as little as 1 month. However, maintaining publication quality requires careful planning, resource allocation, and compliance with Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines. During this plenary session, panel members Demetrios Michael (OPEN Health), Karen King (OPEN Health), Sandrine Hardouin (Alexion), Margarita Lens (UCB), Saurabh Gagangras (Novo Nordisk) and Sam Cavana (Taylor and Francis), discussed how to balance speed, quality and compliance when accelerating publication timelines.

Foundation setting

Gagangras likened expedited publications to a dance performance—months of preparation for a precise and rapid execution. Strategic alignment across internal teams is critical. Early engagement with key opinion leaders ensures they are committed to a highly responsive process, while upfront logistical planning—such as completing authorship agreements and pre-submission inquiries—helps avoid delays.

Medical writers should be onboarded early and cover across time zones should be considered. Pre-drafted shell manuscripts and mock figures can allow blinded investigators to review content before database lock. Clear contingency plans for different data outcomes can also help streamline the publication process post-readout.

Compliant author review

Maintaining compliance while expediting timelines requires a structured yet unconventional review process. The panel highlighted the importance of kick-off meetings that clearly define expectations and review timelines, ensuring authors can accommodate shortened deadlines.

The panel also discussed the utility of live review calls to resolve conflicting feedback, and securing calendar dates for these well in advance. Detailed meeting minutes can ensure transparency and compliance while maximising efficiency. Additionally, pre-selecting secondary journal options and understanding the required adaptations in case of rejection helps minimise delays to final publication.

Navigating journal liaison

Cavana provided a publishing perspective on the process. He emphasised that engaging with journals early can smooth the submission and peer review process, but challenges remain, especially in securing reviewers. Cavana advised attendees to consider their use of artificial intelligence (AI) carefully, as well as the adaptability of any potential digital extenders. Journal policies on these aspects can vary widely and might hinder publication or delay the process.

The exception, not the rule

There was unanimous agreement from the panel that expedited publications should remain reserved for cases with strong justification. Examples include areas of unmet needs, Phase III trials supporting regulatory submission, first-in-class drugs, or paradigm-shifting treatments. Fast-track publishing places significant demands on resources and may disrupt ongoing publication plans. Managing stakeholder expectations is also crucial to prevent unrealistic timelines from becoming the norm.

The role of AI

The panel highlighted emerging AI applications could assist the process in the future, and some success has already been demonstrated with plain language summaries (PLS). Other potential uses, such as automated reference management and data validation, are being explored but require further validation to ensure compliance with journal disclosure policies.

Conclusion: need for speed?

 Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication.

Success in fast-tracking publications involves meticulous preparation, structured review processes, and effective stakeholder communication. While they can accelerate data dissemination, substantial effort is required to balance speed with quality and compliance. It is critical that that these timelines are reserved for rare cases for which there is strong justification.

A discussion on use cases and the adoption of AI within a pharmaceutical, biotech or device company

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Insights from industry highlight AI’s potential to enhance efficiency, quality and value in MedComms.

James Wright (Bioscript Group) led a discussion on the adoption of AI in MedComms with panel members, Pippa Hadland (AstraZeneca), Tom Grant (UCB) and Swati Krishnan (Boehringer Ingelheim). The aim of the session was to further delegates’ understanding of how to use AI in MedComms, by providing insights from the industry perspective.

AI is all around us, but what is it?

Wright opened the session by explaining what AI is. Simply put, AI allows computers and machines to simulate human learning. Indeed, most of us already use AI in our everyday lives, through navigation systems such as Google Maps, virtual assistants, education, and personalisation of online shopping, social media, and online entertainment.

Generative AI can create original content (text, images, video, audio) in response to users’ prompts. Natural Language Processing brings computer science, AI and linguistics together, “enabling computers to understand, interpret, and generate human language in a meaningful and useful way”.

AI in MedComms: panel insights

Several key themes emerged as the panel shared their experiences of developing and using AI for MedComms:

• Use cases – examples of AI tools developed and utilised by panel members included predominantly “low security risk” deliverables such as systematic literature reviews, PLS, and a manuscript first draft proof of concept using published secondary clinical data.
• Efficiency – AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting, eg, summarising large documents, researching new therapy areas, finding details quickly within large quantities of information, or even collating overarching views from 1000s of HCP’s comments in social media.
• Prompts – Wright emphasised that “we get out what we put in” to generative AI, and well-structured prompts are key. UCB have an app that helps with prompt development, and AI can even be prompted to suggest better prompts!
• Quality – while quality may be a common concern, panel members found comparable quality between AI- and human-generated content.
• Value – time-saving with AI may allow budgets to go further, meaning better value for money.
• Data security – maintaining zero risk to patient data, and transparency, are both vital. Security infrastructure around AI is still in its infancy, and represents a challenge, therefore most panel members developed AI tools in-house using closed systems, for “low-risk” projects.
• Industry/agency collaboration – logistical challenges around transparency and security mean that some panel members have kept AI use in-house, while others have formed successful partnerships with trusted vendors.
• Training – experience of AI training comprised a mixture of self-learning through experimentation and online resources, and structured learning through company courses.

AI can free-up employees’ time for more strategic tasks while it does the heavy-lifting. In the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables.

 What does the future hold for AI in MedComms?

With many companies already testing out AI, in the future it will likely move beyond low-risk projects to include proprietary data and a wider scope of deliverables such as infographics or video content. If one thing is clear from this session, it is that AI in MedComms is here to stay.

Roundtable sessions

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

• Shaping the future of publication metrics
• GenAI in the real world
• AI in scientific publishing: overcoming barriers and bridging perspectives across sectors
• Use of social media in an integrated age
• Inclusive innovation: building a more accessible future in medical education
• Improving publication strategies: bridging standard approaches with innovative, proven frameworks
• Demystifying the submission & guidance for standalone podcast & video articles and extenders
• Cross-publisher plain language article guidance: have your say
• What defines a publication as ‘best-in-class’?
• Strategies for integrated evidence generation throughout product lifecycle: role of the publication professional
• Unlocking omnichannel success: crafting scientific narratives tailored for audiences and persona
• Reformat or reform? Evolving manuscript submission processes to put science first
• Pursuit of parallel publication: potential benefits and current challenges of this growing practice
• Empowering patients in an integrated age: a multidisciplinary approach
• The people’s PubMed: empowering patients in the age of misinformation
• Leveraging AI beyond content creation: creating efficiencies and unlocking possibilities
• Intellectual property and ethical integrity in the digital age: safeguarding publications through collaboration and innovation
• ISMPP code of ethics update: sneak peek and discussion

Guided poster tours

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

• Analysis of oncologists’ anticipation of and response to clinical data dissemination at ESMO 2023 and ESMO 2024
• Transforming poster metrics: a low-cost, privacy-preserving solution to measure engagement of posters
• Establishing a lay review panel to ensure medical research accessibility
• Practical recommendations for the wider implementation and reporting of sex-specific analyses in medical publications
• Sins of the father: current medical guidance based on retracted articles in the literature
• Beyond agreement: how is non-consensus handled in Delphi panels?
• A survey of the experience, motivations, and added-value of freelance medical writing professionals

Hackathon activity: shaping the future of GPP together!

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Industry-wide collaboration is essential for refining GPP, focusing on AI integration, patient authorship, real world evidence, and enhancing equity, diversity, and inclusion.

In this interactive session, attendees collaborated in groups to explore gaps in GPP 2022 guidelines and discuss key considerations for future GPP iterations, focusing on 6 key topics:

Advancements in AI

Discussions delved into the anticipated impact of AI on medical publishing by 2026. Key recommendations were to:

• define the balance between AI and human authorship, with explicit author agreements
• establish AI disclosure requirements and ethical risk assessments
• ensure AI compliance with confidentiality standards (open vs closed systems)
• adapt GPP guidance to keep pace with rapid AI evolution while maintaining professional oversight.

 Defining publication metrics

Participants examined the evolution of publication metrics, questioning whether existing measures effectively capture engagement and impact. The importance of identifying meaningful metrics, highlighting gaps, and ensuring accurate interpretations of publication success were highlighted.

Enhancing patient involvement

The best way to integrate patient involvement within GPP guidance was discussed. Key considerations included:

• whether to consolidate patient guidance in a dedicated section or distribute it throughout GPP
• establishing onboarding materials to support patient authors
• clarifying compensation terms to avoid legal and ethical conflicts
• ensuring patient involvement is meaningful and adds value to publications.

 Integrating real world evidence (RWE)

Challenges in publishing RWE studies include perception of lower impact, delayed relevance by the time of publication, and complex statistical analyses. Solutions proposed by participants were to:

• strengthen collaboration between RWE study teams and internal stakeholders
• incorporate RWE studies in early-stage research planning
• provide dedicated statistical expertise to ensure robust data analysis.

 Promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion

Discussions underscored the need to embed equity, diversity, and inclusion principles in GPP updates, and recommendations were to:

• use existing journal lexicons to ensure inclusive terminology
• advocate for regional representation in steering committees
• create a congress checklist to evaluate equity, diversity, and inclusion representation in medical meetings
• hold pharma companies accountable for diverse authorship selection.

 The expanding role of social media

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Participants supported broader use of social media but stressed the need for clear, industry-wide guidelines on best practices and regulatory considerations.

Eline Hanekamp, co-author of the GPP 2022 guidelines, closed the session by emphasising the growing role of AI, the importance of patient involvement, and the evolution of publication metrics. The insights gathered at the Hackathon activity will be presented to the GPP steering committee for consideration when developing the next iteration of GPP.

Finding the story in data: blending data visualisation, storytelling techniques, and new trends while still upholding core values in medical publications (sponsored and presented by HCG)

KEY TAKEAWAY

• Effective storytelling and visualisation techniques enhance data comprehension, making complex information more accessible while maintaining scientific integrity and core values.

Tobias Sturt (Add Two Digital) delivered an insightful talk on the role of storytelling and data visualisation in effectively communicating complex information. The session explored how narrative techniques and visual structure can enhance data interpretation, particularly in medical publications, while ensuring adherence to scientific rigour and ethical standards.

The importance of storytelling in data

Sturt emphasised that the volume and complexity of data in the medical and scientific fields are increasing rapidly. Effective storytelling helps cut through this noise, making information more impactful, understandable, and retainable. Visual storytelling is not about manipulating data but about framing it in a way that clarifies meaning while upholding credibility and trust.

Additionally, he noted that while numbers alone present facts, they often fail to engage audiences. A well-structured story provides context, improving relatability and retention of information. This is particularly critical in medical publications, where complex data must be clearly communicated to diverse audiences.

Principles of data storytelling and visualisation

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload.

Understanding the audience’s background and expectations is crucial. Data should be structured like a narrative, focusing on key insights to prevent information overload. Selection and emphasis ensure that only the most relevant findings are highlighted. While data itself is factual, effective communication evokes emotions that make information more memorable. Using visual structuring techniques such as contrast, positioning, and colour helps guide the viewer’s attention, ensuring clarity and engagement.

Sturt also stressed the need for progressive disclosure—gradually introducing layers of information rather than presenting everything at once. This allows readers to build understanding step by step, making even highly complex data sets more digestible. Balancing simplicity and depth is key to effective storytelling.

The process: find, design, make, refine

Sturt introduced a four-step methodology for data storytelling:

1. Find – identify the core message within the data.
2. Design – develop a visual framework to present the story effectively.
3. Make – create the actual data visualisation.
4. Refine – test and iterate to improve clarity and impact.

This process ensures that visual storytelling remains purposeful and effective, avoiding the common pitfall of overloading graphics with unnecessary elements that detract from the main message.

Applying visual storytelling in medical publications

Sturt concluded with practical applications for medical and scientific publications, highlighting the importance of maintaining core values such as transparency, accuracy, and ethical responsibility. He discussed ways to ensure clarity in figures and graphs, use infographics to summarise key findings, and adapt storytelling techniques to align with evolving publication formats while preserving scientific rigour.

He also emphasised the role of emerging technologies, such as interactive visualisations and digital platforms, in modern medical publishing. These tools offer new ways to engage readers and convey complex findings dynamically while maintaining the credibility that medical communication demands.

The power of data-driven storytelling

Combining storytelling with data visualisation makes complex medical data clearer and more engaging. Aligning these techniques with ethical standards maintains credibility. As data visualisation evolves, leveraging new storytelling methods while staying true to core values will be essential for enhancing the impact of medical communications.

Want to catch up on events from Day 2 of the meeting? You can read our summaries here.

——————————————————–

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

• Delta Think has identified a “small” but “significant” drop in the percentage of open access articles published in 2023, following an 8-year period of sustained growth.
• Delta Think suggest this loss in open access market share could reflect authors moving away from fully open access publishers, given perceived quality issues in a subset of journals.

Hot on the heels of our recent article on the real-terms cost of article processing charges, we look at another report from Delta Think: open access (OA) market share has dropped for the first time since 2016.

According to preliminary results from Delta Think’s 2024 publisher survey, the volume of publications has been rising since 2016, with high OA growth rates dominating the market up to 2023. Following a “post-COVID spike”, growth has now slowed back down to long-term trends, with OA losing market share.  

2023 saw a “small” but “significant” loss in OA market share

Despite previously predicting that OA articles would make up over half the monetisable scholarly output by 2023, Delta Think found that between 2022 and 2023:

• total article output grew by 3.4%
• OA article output grew by 2.1%
• OA’s output share fell from 49% to 48%.

The decrease is a small but notable shift from the long-term trend of incremental gains in OA market share each year. For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output, representing “a reversal of long-term observations”.

For the first time, OA output is not growing as quickly as total scholarly output.

Why has OA lost market share?

Delta Think suggest that alongside a post-COVID return to long-term trends, underlying challenges experienced by OA publishers could be to blame. Authors’ concerns about quality due to paper mills, the rise of special editions, and removal of impact factors may have contributed to a shift away from fully OA publishers, despite these issues affecting only a minority of journals. Uncertainty around funder OA mandates may have also played a role.

Will OA bounce back?

Delta Think caution that it is too early to say, but expect OA growth may pick up again in 2024, at slightly lower levels than in recent years. They note that fully OA publishers still represent a fifth of the market’s output, with well-established hybrid publishers continuing to see growth in OA. Given the benefits of OA, we look forward to seeing whether OA uptake bounces back in 2024.

————————————————–

The 2024 ISMPP Academy takes place on November 13-14 in Philadelphia.

REGISTER TODAY!
Registration is open until October 25, 2024

ISMPP’s 2-day interactive educational academy with the focus on… Pages to Practice – Case Examples and Applications. This meeting will provide a professional development opportunity, as well as practical tools & ideas for your entire organisation. View the full agenda online!

Topics covered include:

• Publication planning
• Digital extensions
• GPP and publication policies/SOPs
• Plain language summaries
• Real-world evidence
• Authorship

Academy features:

• 6 unique active learning sessions – for both newer professionals and experienced professionals. Digital extensions
• Project checklists & outlines
• Create working templates
• Evaluate case studies
• Small-group interactive learning
• Skill development forum
• Group problem-solving

PLUS Plenary Sessions, Exhibitors, Networking, and More!

Company Team Discount/STAR Sponsorship for 5 Team Members or More!

VIEW the meeting agenda. REGISTER TODAY!
Learn about ISMPP at: www.ismpp.org

————————————————–