Mythbusting Medical Writing: Goodbye, Ghosts! Hello, Help!

Hamilton, Cindy W.; Gertel, Art; Jacobs, Adam; Marchington, Jackie; Weaver, Shelley; Woolley, Karen L.

doi:10.1080/08989621.2015.1088788

Cited by 19 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the one hand, most respondents (87%) would accept technical support to overcome their difficulties in publishing, calling into question the legend of the researchers who must do everything (research and writing) themselves [37]. On the other hand, among the 28% of authors who already called upon additional support, only 26% had used services of a medical writer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Duracinský

Lalanne

Rous³

et al. 2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAs publishing is essential but competitive for researchers, difficulties in writing and submitting medical articles to biomedical journals are disabling. The DIAzePAM (Difficultés des Auteurs à la Publication d’Articles Médicaux) survey aimed to assess the difficulties experienced by researchers in the AP-HP (Assistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris, i.e., Paris Hospitals Board, France), the largest public health institution in Europe, when preparing articles for biomedical journals. The survey also aimed to assess researchers’ satisfaction and perceived needs.MethodsA 39-item electronic questionnaire based on qualitative interviews was addressed by e-mail to all researchers registered in the AP-HP SIGAPS (Système d’Interrogation, de Gestion et d’Analyse des Publications Scientifiques) bibliometric database.ResultsBetween 28 May and 15 June 2015, 7766 researchers should have received and read the e-mail, and 1191 anonymously completed the questionnaire (<45 years of age: 63%; women: 55%; physician: 81%; with PhD or Habilitation à Diriger des recherches––accreditation to direct research––: 45%). 94% of respondents had published at least one article in the previous 2 years. 76% of respondents felt they were not publishing enough, mainly because of lack of time to write (79%) or submit (27%), limited skills in English (40%) or in writing (32%), and difficulty in starting writing (35%). 87% of respondents would accept technical support, especially in English reediting (79%), critical reediting (63%), formatting (52%), and/or writing (41%), to save time (92%) and increase high-impact-factor journal submission and acceptance (75%). 79% of respondents would appreciate funding support for their future publications, for English reediting (56%), medical writing (21%), or publication (38%) fees. They considered that this funding support could be covered by AP-HP (73%) and/or by the added financial value obtained by their department from previous publications (56%).ConclusionsThe DIAzePAM survey highlights difficulties experienced by researchers preparing articles for biomedical journals, and details room for improvement.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0371-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Duracinský

Lalanne

Rous³

et al. 2017

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 14 The advice is also timely for authors from other continents with inadequate English skills, poor knowledge of research reporting guidelines, and lack of time for writing tasks despite the urge to increase publication activity. 15 16 …”

Section: Global Editorial Associations and Their Updated Documentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and ‘predatory’ sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

show abstract

“…Medical writing is not the same as ghostwriting. [ 7 9 10 ] The confusion between the two is partly due to the confusion about the authorship criteria. In medical publication, the terms “author” and “writer” are not used interchangeably as synonymous terms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the late 1970s, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) began to define authorship. [ 9 ] The current recommendations published in 2015 are followed by more than 600 medical journals in an attempt to standardize medical manuscript preparations. Several changes have been made to the initial definitions of authorship over time, and the most current definition is based on fulfillment of four different criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and attitudes of Indian surgeons regarding professional medical writing support

Das¹,

Das

2018

Perspect Clin Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:The number of scientific papers published from India each year is low. We tried to determine how often Indian surgeons publish in biomedical journals, challenges preventing them from publishing more often, their awareness of the international guidelines that acknowledge professional medical writing as an ethical service, and their willingness to hire medical writers for their publications.Materials and Methods:A convenience sample of 100 of the surgeons attending a national conference were explained about the survey and asked to complete a survey questionnaire. All results were expressed as absolute frequencies and percentages.Results:Of the 81 who responded, 43 (53%) had never published. Only 31/81 (38%) had published in the last 5 years. The challenges preventing more frequent publication were reported to be the lack of support for carrying out statistical analyses (58%), lack of time (41%), lack of sufficient data (38%), and lack of support for literature search (37%). Twenty-two (27%) surgeons were aware that they could hire a professional medical writer (PMW), 26 (32%) knew that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors allowed PMWs to contribute to articles published in the biomedical journals, 75 (93%) were interested in hiring medical writers or to consider it in the future. Only 6 (7.4%) showed no such interest.Conclusion:There was poor awareness and great interest in hiring PMWs. It might be beneficial to increase the awareness of clinicians about the scientific expertise and communication skills of PMWs and how they can add value to biomedical publications.

show abstract

Mythbusting Medical Writing: Goodbye, Ghosts! Hello, Help!

Cited by 19 publications

References 34 publications

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Barriers to publishing in biomedical journals perceived by a sample of French researchers: results of the DIAzePAM study

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Knowledge and attitudes of Indian surgeons regarding professional medical writing support

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About