Author attitudes to professional medical writing support

Abstract

Objective:

To understand academic/clinician authors’ perceptions regarding the value of professional medical writers.

Research design and methods:

An online survey of academic/clinician authors was conducted to understand the value of professional medical writer support in the development of publications (abstracts, posters and manuscripts). Responses were collected anonymously. The survey used a negative-to-positive, 6 point scale to evaluate respondents’ opinions and experiences of working with professional medical writers, and multiple choice to indicate in which areas professional medical writers added value.

Results:

Responses from 76/260 authors were received (Europe, n = 57; 75.0%; North America, n = 16; 21.1%; Asia-Pacific region, n = 3; 3.9%). The majority of respondents were either clinicians (n = 45; 59.2%) or academic researchers (n = 25; 32.9%). A total of 82.9% (63/76) of respondents felt that it was acceptable to receive professional medical writer assistance with their publications, and 84.0% (63/75) valued the assistance provided. The services most valued (>50 responses) were editing and journal styling, conformity with reporting guidelines (e.g. CONSORT) and manuscript submissions. Fewer respondents (25–49 responses) valued management of timelines and co-author reviews, scientific/technical writing assistance and expert guidance on authorship requirements/good publication practice. The least valued service was the scientific expertise of the professional medical writer (3 responses).

Conclusions:

Respondents to this survey were generally accepting of medical writing assistance and valued many aspects of the role, in particular editorial support. The survey was small, however, and potentially biased towards authors with experience of working with medical communication agencies. Although many medical writers come from a scientific background and have relevant expertise, this was not perceived as a value. It would be beneficial to educate authors and journal editors regarding medical writers’ scientific expertise and role.

Keywords::

• Authorship
• Editorial policies
• Publication bias
• Publishing
• Writing

Transparency

Declaration of funding

This study was not funded.

Declaration of financial/other relationships

J.M.M and G.P.B. have disclosed that they are employees of Caudex Medical (part of the McCann Complete Medical group), a company that provides professional medical writing services funded primarily by the pharmaceutical industry. Both authors are active members of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. J.M.M. has disclosed that she is a member of the Global Alliance for Publication Professionals.

CMRO peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Catherine Kidd PhD CMPP for her contribution to the original survey, Stephen Craig PhD for assistance with the subanalysis and Carol Cooper PhD CMPP for editorial assistance with the manuscript. All are employees of Caudex Medical. The authors also thank those who took the time to complete the survey.