Jose Antonio Barrientos, Michelle Collins, Gaurav Kumar, Safeer Mughal and Sam Rushton-Reed discuss how medcomms has changed in light of COVID-19.
Learn how the scientific community can boost the impact of conference presentations by utilising online platforms and social media.
Could increasing use of submission fees by scientific journals be an unforeseen outcome of the COVID-19 pandemic?
ISMPP poll result in ‘The MAP’ explores what to do if you have concerns about a potentially insufficient manuscript review by non-English speaking authors
Listen to Travis Hicks discuss different publication enhancement options in this podcast from ISMPP.
The MAP newsletter explores ways to maximise relevance of global scientific communication platforms for regional stakeholders.
Listen to Jason Gardner discuss how to prepare and store plain language summaries in this podcast from ISMPP.
A survey provides insights into the effects of COVID-19 on medical communications and the immediate and long-term adjustments being made as a result.
Part B of a two-part series delves into the practicalities of patient authorship and offers tips for effective and ethical patient collaboration.
Patient authorship is here and here to stay. Part A of a two-part series explores how sponsors may benefit from patient authorship, or risk getting left behind.
Find out how bite-size content is being used to reach time-poor readers in an era of information overload in our summary of the ISMPP Annual Meeting preview.
Could medical publishing benefit from a more dynamic system, where open publications can be updated and engagement is sought across disciplines?
An increased reliance on virtual congresses and digital technologies during the pandemic may herald lasting changes, and opportunities, in medical communications.
Join ISMPP’s free webinar on COVID-19 and publication planning.
Find out more about how medical publication professionals make decisions about authorship order.
PLOS ONE now offers Registered Reports, shifting peer review focus from results to the quality of study design. Is this part of the future of open science?