A guide to applying the Good Publication Practice 3 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region

Author language and communication preferences, and familiarity with global publication guidelines, for English-language industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific: insights from a cross-sectional survey

OBJECTIVE

To understand current practices and challenges for collecting author feedback for English-language, industry-sponsored publications in Asia-Pacific (APAC), and the implications for adherence to international publication guidelines.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, internet-based survey of industry ('internal') authors (17 questions) and publication professionals (18 questions) supporting publications in APAC, conducted between November 18 and December 4, 2022.

RESULTS

Overall, 142 survey responses were received, of which 94 (66%) were complete and included in the analysis (33 internal authors, 61 publication professionals). Almost half (45%) of internal authors preferred a non-English language for providing feedback on publications, and most (70%) would use this language whenever possible. Internal authors favored written (91%) versus spoken (73%) English, and email was the preferred mode of communication. Publication professionals said they have observed qualitative differences when authors provide feedback in a preferred non-English language versus English. Many agreed that authors tend to provide more substantive or critical feedback when they can respond in their preferred non-English language. Internal authors had low self-assessed familiarity with key publication guidelines, while most publication professionals had a moderate or high self-assessed familiarity. The main barriers to application of publication guidelines, as rated by publication professionals, were that external authors in APAC are not familiar with global publication guidelines and do not always provide feedback/responses in writing.

CONCLUSION

It is important to consider the diverse language, cultural, and communication preferences of individuals involved in English-language publication development in APAC, and to ensure that authors are aware of current publication guidelines and best practices.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

Challenges and growth opportunities: the landscape of Chinese medical publication professionals in the global context: a questionnaire-based survey

OBJECTIVE

The Chinese healthcare industry has immense potential for innovation and requires competent publication professionals for global reach. Changes in regulatory landscape of China necessitates pharmaceutical industries to collaborate with medical professionals who are capable of keeping up with both changes in regulations and innovative medicine.

METHODS

We initiated an online questionnaire-based survey via WeChat from August 3 to August 14, 2019 which focused on experience level, challenges, career development, and training requirements of survey participants.

RESULTS

A total of 53 medical publication professionals participated in this survey. Contrary to global trends, 77% of participants had <5 years of professional experience in publication, although only 36% of participants had <5 years of experience in healthcare industry. In all, 63% of respondents spent <50% of their time in publication-related activities, contributing to <10 manuscripts per year. Their expertise in manuscripts spanned clinical studies (68%), post-marketing studies (62%), and reviews (38%). Poor research design and data quality, limited medical writing skill, and inefficient communication with authors were major challenges for developing high-quality publications. Awareness of good publication practices guidelines was high (49%) and 15% of respondents were Certified Medical Publication Professionals. Strategic publication planning (72%), industry trends (66%), and best practices (55%) were some of training requirements identified to increase competencies among respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Chinese medical publication professional industry is at a nascent stage, an attempt is being made to provide opportunities for its publication professionals to develop their competencies to match global standards.

AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.