KEY TAKEAWAYS

• US government executive orders targeting EDI programmes are prompting federally funded journals to censor demographic data and equity-focused language.
• Authors and editors are pushing back to ensure data are made available and to maintain the integrity of the scientific record.

Following US government executive orders to end federal equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) programmes and to only recognise two sexes, The BMJ has emphasised the importance of retaining sex and gender data in published research. In an article in Undark, Peter Andrey Smith highlights another example of the scientific community pushing back against federal pressure to remove EDI-related data.

Authors make a stand

Smith describes the case of anthropologist Tamar Antin and co-authors, who faced an unusual request from the federally funded journal Public Health Reports following acceptance of their paper on tobacco use. The editors requested removal of the word “equitably” and demographic data, citing compliance with executive orders. Rather than grant the request, Antin and co-authors withdrew their paper entirely and went public. This “act of defiance” was met with widespread support from the scientific community, who argued that removing demographic data doesn’t just affect one paper’s conclusions – it hampers future studies by denying other scientists the opportunity to reanalyse findings or build on existing research.

“Removing demographic data doesn’t just affect one paper’s conclusions – it hampers future studies by denying other scientists the opportunity to reanalyse findings or build on existing research.”

The bigger picture

Smith also shares examples of federally funded researchers requesting:

• withdrawal
• removal of authors from bylines
• specific wording changes

to accepted papers, citing the political landscape. While this affects a minority of submissions directly, maintaining the integrity of the scientific record is paramount.

Looking ahead, the Committee on Publication Ethics’ position statement emphasises that publishing decisions and language choices should not be influenced by politics or government policies, and there is no place for retractions to censor the scientific record.

————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Inclusive publishing recognises the value of all validated research in enhancing scientific reproducibility and progress.
• Publishers must embrace inclusive practices to reflect diversity within the scientific landscape.

Inclusive journals value null results, preliminary data, and experimental design papers, which promote reproducibility and can hasten innovation. Unlike selective journals, which prioritise ‘high impact’ discoveries, inclusive journals recognise that research does not need to be ground-breaking to be an advancement. In a Springer Nature article, Ritu Dhand discusses the benefits of inclusive publishing.

COVID-19: a case study

Dhand highlights how the COVID-19 crisis created an unprecedented need for peer-reviewed science. Journals responded by adopting inclusive publishing practices, recognising the importance of preliminary data and innovative methods. The rapid dissemination of pilot studies and null results enabled scientists worldwide to focus precious time and effort on pushing unexplored frontiers. Inclusive publishing proved pivotal in an extraordinary global effort to compress drug discovery timelines from years to months. However, these inclusive practices faded after the pandemic.

The price of selectivity

Dhand notes that 50% of research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance. A study prepared for the European Commission estimated that in 2018, €26 billion was wasted on duplicated research in Europe alone.

50% of funded research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance.

Value beyond citation metrics

Inclusive journals often publish a high number of papers, leading to lower impact factors. However, the value of the research can be measured by other metrics. For example, over a third of Springer Nature’s inclusive content addresses the UN Sustainable Development Goals, demonstrating its societal impact.

Diversity in research publication

Inclusive publication practices also involve increasing the diversity of authors and countries contributing research. Dhand highlights that a similar proportion of research publications are from Western Nations and Asia, yet editorial boards and reviewers remain Western dominated. As key decision makers, individuals in these roles should reflect the diversity of the research communities.

Dhand acknowledges that selective journals will continue to offer a platform for ground-breaking research, but highlights the need for widespread inclusive publication practices to satisfy the evolving needs of science and society.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

The panellists discussed several key uses of visuals:

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

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

The panel raised potential challenges with using visuals in storytelling:

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

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

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

————————————————–

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

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

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

Summaries of Day 3

Innovating through diverse therapeutic solutions: update on digital therapeutics

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rhythm of innovation: crescendo and drumbeats in concert

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The right venue: maximising impact across medical congresses and societies

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

Strategic congress planning: making every meeting matter

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

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

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

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

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

Extending congress content

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

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

Guided Poster Tour

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

Engineered vs non-engineered

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

Iterative agents: AI playing in harmony

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

Future perspective

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

Tech expertise is not needed

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

Speak to AI like it’s human

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

The value of domain expertise and tone

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

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

Integrate AI into your working

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

Member research oral presentations

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

Encore! Hot topics and meeting highlights

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

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

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

Board of Trustees ceremony and closing remarks and CMPP update

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

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

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

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

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• A recent instruction from the Trump administration ordered CDC scientists to withdraw articles from scientific journals that include “forbidden terms” related to gender.
• BMJ editors urge other journals to maintain the integrity of scientific research by resisting “bow[ing] to political or ideological censorship”.

A recent instruction from the Trump administration directed US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists to withdraw or retract any submitted (but not yet published) articles that include “forbidden terms” such as gender, transgender, LGBT, or transsexual. In an opinion article published in The BMJ, Jocalyn Clark (International Editor) and Kamran Abbasi (Editor-in-Chief) warn of the dangers of blocking important medical information from publication.

Censoring sex and gender in published research

Clark and Abbasi explain that sex and gender data are critical for understanding differences among populations and individuals from outcome and experience perspectives. The authors emphasise that blocking gender-related data is not only harmful for patients, but compromises the integrity of scientific research as a whole. They believe that attempting to censor these data is a political maneuver based on “anti-gender ideology” and “a return to fundamentalist values”, in line with the recent disappearance of other politically charged content on topics like immunisation and contraception from CDC websites and datasets.

“Blocking gender-related data is not only harmful for patients, but compromises the integrity of scientific research as a whole.”

Violation of publication ethics

Clark and Abbasi highlight several ways in which the instruction breaches publication ethics:

• Being at odds with the reporting standards adhered to by medical journals, such as the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines.
• Conflicting with authorship criteria, which not only ensure that authors are credited for their work, but are accountable for it. Removing an author who qualifies for authorship, even at their own request, constitutes ghost writing.
• “Muzzling” important medical data. Although authors are within their rights to withdraw submitted papers from a given journal prior to publication, the data should still be published.

The authors call upon journal editors to resist the instruction on the grounds that they have a “duty to stand for integrity and equity”, which supersedes any “political or ideological censorship”.

————————————————–

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

• In late 2024, the Declaration of Helsinki underwent its most radical update in 60 years, including a revision to protect healthy volunteers.
• However, critics suggest there is still a way to go and that other aspects of research ethics need to be incorporated, such as how to ensure the benefits of clinical research are felt by trial participants and their communities. 

The World Medical Association (WMA) recently updated a key ethical framework, the Declaration of Helsinki, at a scale not seen since the Declaration’s inception in 1964. As reported by Cathleen O’Grady in Science, the WMA hope that the changes will help to drive new standards in research equity.

“Humans”, not “subjects”, and the importance of healthy volunteers

As outlined by O’Grady, the 2024 revisions, which mark the tenth time the document has been updated, struck a new tone, with the Declaration’s title now referring to “human participants” rather than “human subjects”. The revisions, published in JAMA with accompanying editorial, also include the first ever mention of healthy volunteers, rather than considering only patient participants in research.

The 2024 revisions, which mark the tenth time the document has been updated, struck a new tone, with the Declaration’s title now referring to “human participants” rather than “human subjects”.

Expanded scope

These important steps forward are not the only signs of the Declaration’s expanded scope and ambition. Other changes include:

• a direction that all those involved in medical research should adopt the Declaration’s principles, not just doctors.
• a focus on ensuring vulnerable groups are included in medical research. Previous guidance aimed at protecting groups such as pregnant people inadvertently led to their exclusion from clinical trials. The revised Declaration notes that this can exacerbate disparities and that the harms of exclusion and inclusion should both be considered.

Radical, but complete?

The WMA General Assembly unanimously supported the 2024 update, which Dr Ashok Philip, President of the WMA, described as a “landmark revision”. However, as reported by O’Grady, some feel the revisions should have gone even further and that there are still key omissions, namely:

• Benefits for participants and the wider community: the update does not look at ways to ensure that trial participants and their communities benefit from research.
• Other types of research: the Declaration’s focus remains medical research, with epidemiological and behavioural studies not yet covered.
• Data protection: the use of data from insurance or pharmaceutical company databases in research, and related issues of informed consent, are not discussed.

Nevertheless, the Declaration of Helsinki remains a cornerstone of ethical conduct in medical research, and the latest revisions provide an important focus on the dignity of research participants. Chair of the revision workgroup, Dr Jack Resneck Jr, calls on all involved in medical research to uphold these renewed principles.

————————————————–

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

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

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

Summaries of Day 2

Empowering patient voices in authorship: navigating barriers and enhancing support

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

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

The patient journey to authorship

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

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

Support from publishers and industry

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

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

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

Compensation and ethical considerations

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

Recognition and authorship tagging

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAYS

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

Rethinking scientific publications: A balloon debate

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

Alternative formats in medical communication

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

The debate & final verdict

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

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

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

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

Making meetings better for all

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

Patient perspectives

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

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

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

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

What can we do?

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

How do we get our values?

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

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

Challenging where truth comes from

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

Inclusivity is key for success

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

We need to teach AI inclusivity

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

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

Member research oral presentations

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

The IMCP framework is built on four key principles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

The workflow followed a structured process:

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

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

The agency perspective

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

The publisher’s perspective

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

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

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

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

The industry perspective

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

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

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

KEY TAKEAWAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closing remarks, raffles, and poster awards

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

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

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

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

——————————————————–

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

——————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• English-language dominance persists in academic publishing; addressing such biases is crucial for creating an equitable global scholarly landscape.
• New practical tools and guidance from DIAMAS aim to help foster a more inclusive approach.

English-language dominance in academic publishing is increasingly recognised as a significant barrier to non-native English speakers, and one which requires stakeholders throughout academic publishing to take practical steps to address it.

Survey

As recently reported by Lynne Bowker and colleagues on the LSE Impact Blog, a European survey of 685 institutional publishers, conducted by DIAMAS (Developing Institutional open Access publishing Models to Advance Scholarly communication), found that 54% of institutional publishers do not implement specific measures to support equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB). Only around 30% had begun to implement measures to address linguistic bias.

As the blog authors highlight, this is in contrast to the important role that publishers have to play in addressing EDIB in academic publishing and underscores the need for comprehensive action.

54% of institutional publishers do not implement specific measures to support equity, diversity, inclusion, and belonging (EDIB).

A snowball effect

The authors explain how English-language dominance has inadvertently privileged native speakers within academic research and publishing. This extends beyond just authorship, to peer reviewers and editorial boards, thus ultimately influencing the global research agenda. In this environment, authors from non-English-speaking backgrounds are likely to have fewer opportunities to publish, creating a cycle of disadvantage that can affect their academic careers.

Gender bias further exacerbates these disparities, with women underrepresented as lead authors, peer reviewers, and editorial board members. Biases are often intersectional, affecting individuals with multiple marginalised identities even more.

Practical solutions and future directions

To help address these issues, DIAMAS is incorporating EDIB as a core component in its new standard for diamond open access. As part of the initiative, DIAMAS will make a range of practical resources freely available, including:

• Toolsuites: 500-word summaries, accompanied by tools such as glossaries and frequently asked questions
• Guidelines: practical resources for each key stakeholder in academic publishing.

It is hoped that, by using these tools, scholarly publishers and institutions can take meaningful steps towards creating a more equitable and inclusive academic landscape.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAY

• The first global study on trends and standards in open science highlights some good practices, but also warns of inequities.

Recent data from UNESCO show a mixed outlook for the adoption of open science practices around the world. While some progress has been made in recent years, more still needs to be done to ensure specific initiatives, such as open access publishing, translate into truly equitable access to science.

In 2021, UNESCO published an international framework for the advancement of open science. Adopted by 193 countries, the Recommendation on Open Science outlined common values, principles, and guidelines for achieving open science globally. At the end of last year, the organisation shared its first global comprehensive assessment of trends and standards in open science. A recent editorial published in Nature commented on the key findings. Among its positive insights were:

• an increase in spending on ‘societal engagement’ projects by the European Commission from 2002 to 2020
• mandated open access publishing for research data arising from the EU Horizon 2020 programme
• the establishment of a national infrastructure sharing scheme for scientific research in Brazil
• progress towards building a national open science policy to improve the scrutiny, transparency, and reproducibility of research in South Africa.

While the report acknowledged a clear increase in open access publishing, it warned that focusing on scientific outputs is only part of the picture. As UNESCO emphasise: 

“Open science is about making sure not only that scientific knowledge is accessible but also that the production of that knowledge itself is inclusive, equitable and sustainable.”

Indeed, Ismael Rafols (UNESCO Chair on Diversity and Inclusion in Global Science) highlights in his recent blog post at Leiden Madtrics that there is a danger of creating a ‘streetlight effect’, whereby the focus of policy on measurable outputs causes the underlying open science principles to be neglected.

Another issue with current open science practices — highlighted by Rafols – is the high costs associated with some models of open access publishing, which can put scientists in lower-income countries at a disadvantage. The open access publisher eLife has recognised this territorial inequity and recently established the Global South Committee for Open Science. The initiative unites researchers who are minoritised on the basis of their nation’s socioeconomic or political status, to increase their representation in the global scientific community.

Of course, all scientific stakeholders should support the principles of open science. Now is a good time for us to reflect on how we, as individuals and within our own organisations, can help further the true spirit of the movement.

————————————————–