Register for the 16th Annual International Publication Planning Meeting

P715_600x150.jpg

The 16th Annual International Publication Planning Meeting is back in San Diego February 21-22, 2017 – with a redesigned agenda and an expert speaking faculty ready to take on your biggest questions about current trends and challenges facing scientific/medical communications professionals.

Join fellow publication professionals to share best practices, challenge conventional and emerging practices, and reveal lessons learned at this one-of-a-kind, interactive event!

REGISTER HERE

On behalf of The Publication Plan, take 10% off with discount code: PMP105


Top Reasons to Attend

  • Compare differences in managing a pub planning team from a small, medium, and large company perspective – from global communications to handling author expenses to publishing the Protocol and more
  • Learn how to integrate patient-level data, input and perspectives into clinical development and data dissemination plans
  • Identify strategies for targeting and reaching the optimal audience for specialty drugs, biosimilars, and medical devices
  • Hear current trends in article acceptance – what kinds of articles are journals looking for right now?
  • Find out about tech solutions that can broaden readership and comprehension

Registration Details

10% Discount Code – PMP105

Early Bird Registration Rate – $1895

Early Bird rates end 11/29
*subject to HEA approval

For more information and to register, visit the website or contact: 

Rhonda West at 704-341-2647 or rwest@frallc.com

New Medical Writer Joint Position Statement Released by AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP

joint-statement

The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) today released a Joint Position Statement on the Role of Professional Medical Writers, which is the first unified position on the role of professional medical writers from three leading professional organizations.

Yvonne Yarker, PhD, CMPPTM, Chair of ISMPP’s Board of Trustees, who just announced the Joint Position Statement at the European Meeting of ISMPP, in London, stated, “The Joint Position Statement will benefit professional medical writers by helping to share best practices and confirm the value of the profession.”

Building on Good Publication Practice (GPP3) guidelines and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations, the Joint Position Statement describes best practices for professional medical writers. It also provides a template for appropriately disclosing medical writing support.

The Joint Position Statement explains the value of professional medical writing to evidence-based medicine by summarizing current evidence on the professional medical writer’s role in the ethical, accurate, and timely disclosure of research results. “By emphasizing that professional medical writers are appropriately qualified and follow rigorous guidelines, the Joint Position Statement seeks to strengthen the standing of the profession among journal editors, peer reviewers, and readers,” said Chris Winchester, DPhil, EMWA Member.

The Joint Position Statement can be accessed on the AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP websites.

“This Joint Position Statement describes, for the first time, a global standard for professional medical writers. This will serve as a valuable reference for ethical publication practices, worldwide,” stated Art Gertel, AMWA Past-President.

AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP together have a total membership of over 6,500 medical communicators around the world. The Joint Position Statement supersedes previous position statements and guidelines from participating organizations. Individual members are encouraged to update their own publication policies accordingly.

The Joint Position Statement was drafted and reviewed by representatives of AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP, located in Europe, North America, and Asia. Preparation of the Joint Position Statement was possible thanks to the efforts of four members of the Writing Committee (Art Gertel, AMWA; Chris Winchester, EMWA; Karen Woolley and Yvonne Yarker, ISMPP), the organizational reviewers, and all those involved in the original position statements of the three organizations.

About AMWA: The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) is a not-for-profit organization promoting excellence in medical communication and providing educational resources in support of that goal. AMWA’s over 4,000 members are committed to accurately and ethically making information about health and medicine clear and meaningful. www.amwa.org

About EMWA: The European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) is an association committed to representing, supporting and training medical communication professionals. It has more than 1,000 members from all over Europe and beyond, representing all sectors of medical writing. EMWA is a not-for-profit organisation, run by its members for its members. www.emwa.org

About ISMPP: The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) is the only not-for-profit organization founded by medical publication professionals for medical publication professionals. Since its inception in 2005, the Society has grown to more than 1,500 members, with representation from all stakeholders involved in the publication of medical research. www.ismpp.org.

[VIDEO] How to get the best out of journal presubmission enquiries

Caroline Halford of Adis explains how a judicious approach to presubmission enquiries and discussions with journal editors can aid successful article submissions.

This recording was made on 4 January,2017 in Oxford, UK at a MedComms Networking event.

[VIDEO] CrossMark: providing updates and linking for clinical trial publications

Kirsty Meddings of Crossref demonstrates the depth of information about an article that’s available to researchers who click the Crossmark button.

This recording was made on 4 January,2017 in Oxford, UK at a MedComms Networking event.

[VIDEO] Crossref – Providing Infrastructure and Services for Scholarly Comms

Rachael Lammey, Member and Community Outreach at Crossref, talks about how the Crossref services for scholarly publishing make content easy to find, cite, link and assess.

This recording was made on 4 January,2017 in Oxford, UK at a MedComms Networking event.

FREE WEBINAR: Graphical Presentation of Data in Medical Publications

iu

MARK YOUR CALENDAR!

The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) invites you to attend a special 90-minute ISMPP University  (ISMPP U) educational webinar, “Graphical Presentation of Data in Medical Publications“, on Wednesday, January 25, at 11 am ET/4 pm GMT. This ISMPP U is complimentary and open to ALL, regardless of ISMPP membership status! Simply click here to register today, and you’ll receive the weblink information to attend the webinar.

Webinar attendees will learn from experts about how to integrate essential graphical presentation elements into medical publications. Figures, tables and images contribute to data interpretation and often give rise to conclusions on the part of the reader. Without proper planning and design, data can be ignored and even misinterpreted.

DATE AND TIME: Wednesday, January 25, 2017

11:00 AM (EST) / 4:00 PM (GMT) *90 minutes*

FACULTY: Tom Lang, MA, Principal, Tom Lang Communications and Training International

Dikran Toroser, PhD, ISMPP CMPPTM, Senior Medical Writing Manager, Amgen

Charles J. Turck, President and CEO, ScientiaCME, LLC

MODERATOR: Hajira Koeller, PhD, Associate Director, Scientific Communications, Medical Affairs, Alkermes, Inc.

CiteScore: A new rival for the Journal Impact Factor

Earlier this month, the publisher Elsevier launched a new journal metric, the CiteScore index, to assess the quality of academic journals.

CiteScore is essentially the average citations per document that a title receives over a three-year period and is highly similar to the existing and already controversial Journal Impact Factor (JIF). However, Citescore uses Scopus, the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature. It covers almost twice as many journals as Web of Science, on which the next-leading abstract and citation data provider bases its metric. Moreover, unlike the JIF, which is available only to subscribers, CiteScore is free for anyone to view and analyse online. As a recent article in Nature describes, the significant difference between CiteScore and its closest competitor is that CiteScore counts all documents – including editorials, letters, and news items – as potentially citable. This key distinction results in some established high-impact journals, including Nature and Science, attaining a much lower citation score with CiteScore.

Both Clarivate Analytics, which bought the JIF and the Web of Science from Thomson Reuters earlier this year, and Elsevier, claim that their metrics are fully transparent with unbiased content coverage. However, it has been debated whether or not a publisher should be producing a journal metric at all.citescore

——————————————————–

Summary by Louise Niven, DPhil from Aspire Scientific

Preprints: support from EMBO and big biology

A recent editorial from The EMBO Journal demonstrates the publisher’s support for preprints, a version of a manuscript that proceeds its publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Bernd Pulverer, Chief editor at the journal, discusses how preprints diminish the delay between discovery and dissemination of results, increase diversity of data and have opportunity to improve science publishing, stating that “preprints are one step towards an Open Science future”.

EMBO Press encourage the posting of primary research manuscripts on non-peer-reviewed preprint servers such as arXiv, bioRxiv and PeerJ Preprint before, or in parallel with, formal submission to the journal. Moreover, they offer publishing incentives, such as scooping protection from the day of posting a preprint version of a manuscript, provided the manuscript is submitted to the journal within 4 months of posting. EMBO Press hope this will particularly benefit younger scientists, where preprints can provide formal research documentation for grant or job applications.

Bernd acknowledges that “the jury is still out on how to best ensure preprints do not allow dissemination of misleading, ethically compromised, plagiarised, false, or outright dangerous information”. However, EMBO believe that preprints can ultimately improve the quality of peer-review, leading to the sharing of high-quality carefully peer-reviewed science alongside not peer-reviewed science.

For some, publishing preprints is already mandatory; the 4D Nucleome, a major research consortium funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), now requires that all manuscripts related to its programme are posted to an online preprint server ahead of peer review. The  Chan Zuckerberg Biohub is considering a similar policy.

embo

——————————————————–

Summary by Louise Niven, DPhil from Aspire Scientific