Dear Editor,
We read with interest the recent article by Marchington and Burd describing the results of a survey sent to academic/clinician authors concerning the role of professional medical writers (PMWs)Citation1. Overall, medical writing assistance was considered positively, with editorial support valued more than scientific expertise.
The study has limitations as outlined by the authorsCitation1. The population surveyed may have been biased as it included only authors who used PMWs. In addition, the percentage of responders (76 out of 260; i.e. 29.2%) is very low, and the responders were mainly clinicians and from Europe. However, we should not assume that most non-responders would have made negative comments. In our experience, busy clinicians and academics receive several invitations to participate in surveys. Not surprisingly, many invitations are ignored.
In early 2005 we proposed, in the same journal, the GATE principles for PMWsCitation2:
Guarantee: are the authors guarantors of the article? Advice: was the professional writer ‘advised’ by the author(s) before, as well as after, starting the assignment? Were the overall conclusions defined by the author(s)? Transparency: the contribution of professional writers should be acknowledged. Expertise: does the professional writer have sufficient knowledge in the relevant specific field?
We also suggested the need for training PMWs and their registration as professionals within regulating bodies. There is no reason why clinicians need continuing professional development/continuing medical education while PMWs do not. PMWs could also gradually build up knowledge and expertise in certain fields.
The GATE principles were further commented onCitation3,Citation4. They were wrongly attributed to the European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) but this was error clarifiedCitation3,Citation5.
The present article by Marchington and BurdCitation1 reflects many of the points we madeCitation2 in 2005. Possibly the authors were unaware of this earlier publication. We find it reassuring that Marchington and Burd came up with broadly similar conclusions. As we mentioned previouslyCitation3, the issue of ghost writing was first raised in 1934. Time to sort out all these related issues in a definitive manner!
We welcome the views of Marchington and Burd and others on these matters.
Transparency
Declaration of funding
This letter was written independently. The authors did not receive financial or professional help with the preparation of the text.
Declaration of financial/other relationships
S.S.D. has disclosed that she is supported by Fonds de Recherche du Québec – Santé. D.P.M. has disclosed that he is the Editor-in-Chief of CMRO and has given talks and attended conferences sponsored by Merck, Sharp & Dohme and Genzyme.
References
- Marchington JM, Burd GP. Author attitudes to professional medical writing support. Curr Med Res Opin 2014;30:2103-8
- Daskalopoulou SS, Mikhailidis DP. The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications. Curr Med Res Opin 2005;21:307-10
- Daskalopoulou SS, Mikhailidis DP. Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:149
- Laine C, Mulrow CD. Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Ann Intern Med 2005;143:611-12
- Jacobs A. Exorcising ghosts and unwelcome guests. Ann Intern Med 2006;144:149