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 TAKEAWAY

• Generative AI tools can simplify data sharing through automating metadata creation and flagging missed requirements, ultimately enhancing open science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has proved transformative in scientific research, from experimental design to assisting publishers and streamlining peer review processes. But can it unlock access to research data, code, and protocols frequently lost behind digital and institutional walls? In a recent London School of Economics Impact Blog article, Niki Scaplehorn and Henning Schoenenberger, both at Springer Nature, describe how generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.

Hurdles to data sharing

The COVID-19 pandemic marked a turning point for open science, with global collaboration and rapid data sharing accelerating breakthroughs. Yet, Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that there are still considerable challenges to data sharing:

• a lack of consistent guidance and struggles to align with FAIR standards
• confusing and overlapping data sharing policies
• cultural barriers
• a lack of recognition for data sharing, code publication, and protocol documentation in academia.

Springer Nature saw compliance with data sharing requirements jump from 51% to 87% simply by asking authors to justify why they hadn’t deposited data prior to article acceptance. Scaling this approach, however, demands time and manpower. According to Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger, here, generative AI shows potential.

How can AI benefit data sharing?

The authors call for a “product” mindset that treats AI open science tools as services designed around researchers’ needs, rather than top-down mandates or administrative burdens. Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger highlight that AI can benefit data sharing through:

• automation of metadata creation
• flagging missing documentation and overlooked requirements
• suggesting best practices to improve workflows.

“Generative AI could play a pivotal role in reshaping how data are shared, potentially revolutionising open science.”

The path forward

Scaplehorn and Schoenenberger believe that adopting AI tools designed around authors’ needs will streamline the burdensome aspects of data sharing. Ultimately, this will benefit researchers, policymakers, and everyone who relies on access to scientific information through lowering the barriers to open science.

—————————————————

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.

————————————————–

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.

————————————————–

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 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 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

• AI can enhance efficiency at every stage of SLR development, facilitating projects of scale that may previously have been unfeasible.
• Use of AI in SLRs requires human oversight to ensure quality, transparency, reproducibility, and accuracy, with authors remaining accountable for their work.

As the demand for up-to-date systematic literature reviews (SLRs) grows, artificial intelligence (AI) is an increasingly appealing tool given its efficiency and ability to manage a vast evidence base. In their article for the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP), Polly Field, Thomas Rees, and Richard White highlight the benefits of AI in SLRs and key considerations for its use.

Benefits and pitfalls of AI

AI tools can streamline SLRs by analysing large datasets, summarising and grouping data, identifying patterns, and visualising findings – all in a fraction of the time it would take a team of researchers. However, careful attention must be given to how AI tools handle sensitive input data, including confidential content, copyrighted material, and personal information. Human validation remains essential to address potential inaccuracies, ‘hallucinations’, omissions, and bias produced by AI.

When and how should AI be used?

Whether and how to use AI in SLRs depends on the context. AI can help to:

• frame research questions
• optimise search strategies
• screen studies
• extract data
• assess the quality of evidence, and
• synthesise findings.

Different AI tools suit different stages, but the authors stress that all use of AI must adhere to strict principles of transparency, reproducibility, quality, and accuracy.

Medical publication professionals should familiarise themselves with existing guidance from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and individual journal policies, as well as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines on disclosure of AI use. These policies expound the following principles:

• All authors remain fully accountable for the quality and accuracy of their work, including when AI is involved.
• Transparency is critical – both the methods and acknowledgment sections must clearly document how and where AI was applied.

The authors emphasise that human oversight is essential, ensuring AI supports rather than replaces expert judgement.

“Human oversight is essential, ensuring AI supports rather than replaces expert judgement.”

As AI embeds deeper into SLRs, the authors encourage medical publication professionals to explore the potential use of AI in their research, while adopting key principles to ensure robust, transparent, and high-quality reviews.

————————————————–