58 AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org INTRODUCTION Maintenance of Quality in Publications During Public Health Emergencies Timely release of data in the form of peer-reviewed publica- tions is crucial in medical research and necessary for produc- tive scientific discourse. However, during public health crises such as a pandemic, the need to communicate science rapidly can lead to abbreviated vetting and substantially increase the risk of compromised quality and accuracy in data analysis and reporting. Indeed, the pressing requirement for speed in tack- ling a pandemic and the necessary collaboration between aca- demia, industry, and regulatory agencies on an international level creates a significant dilemma: the need to rapidly release data on PubMed Central and other resources, such as the World Health Organization’s databases, while upholding the quality of the communication and the data. Maintenance of integrity and accuracy in scientific publications via a thorough vetting pro- cess prior to public release requires time and implementation of quality-control measures. Medical communicators have an important role to play in this process. By way of their speed, some publication modalities, such as preprints, may seem particularly attractive when quick release of information and rapid scientific discourse is desired. However, because such preliminary scientific reports are gen- erally not subject to thorough peer review, there is an inevi- table increase in the concomitant risk of lower quality and lack of precision. Thus, full disclosure of whether a publication has been peer-reviewed and transparency about the quality-control process are absolutely required. In this Joint Position Statement (JPS) from AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP, we provide suggestions and a structured framework, including a number of practical recommendations that can be implemented to help maintain quality and avoid damaging public trust in scientific and medical communication. The prac- tical recommendations in the current JPS are intended to sup- port quality-control processes in both the acute phase of intense reactions during the course of a public health emergency as well as the longer-term evergreen need to maintain quality in medi- cal publications. The persistent call for rapid sharing of scientific advances against a firm background of insistence on high quality enables acceleration of medical innovation. Safeguards are pre- sented as a clear and concise checklist that can be used by jour- nals, authors, and medical communicators in the preparation and review of manuscripts before submission. – Dikran Toroser, PhD, CMPP / Director, Publications Group Lead, Rare Diseases, Neuroscience, TAKEDA Publications, Cambridge, MA – Gail V. Flores, PhD / Principal Writer, Encore Biomedical Communications LLC, Encinitas, CA AMWA representatives to the authorship team for the AMWA-EMWA- ISMPP Joint Position Statement on Medical Publications, Preprints, and Peer Review. Author declaration and disclosures: The authors note no commer- cial associations that may pose a conflict of interest in relation to this article. This joint position statement originally appeared in Current Medical Research and Opinion, DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2021.1900365. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP Joint Position Statement on Medical Publications, Preprints, and Peer Review 1. BACKGROUND In medical publications, just as in research and development, quality depends on the expertise and integrity of researchers/ authors as well as qualified peer reviewers and journal edi- tors. However, the laborious and time-consuming process of the traditional peer review1 can be compromised by the pres- sure to publish quickly—particularly during a health crisis, when timely distribution of credible medical information can make a substantial difference.2 Recent examples of negative consequences are two articles on COVID-19 that were hastily published in high-profile medical journals and subsequently retracted.3,4 Traditional peer review, although not perfect, remains the most frequently used process for vetting scientific publications. However, it has become more common for manuscripts to be released without prior review, which raises new concerns. The potential value of rapid publication should be weighed against the potential harm of inadequate validation of the final output. There is a danger that lowering the threshold of publication oversight sets a precedent that cannot be easily reversed, potentially eroding standards and public trust in medical science.2 We have joined in a multi-party consortium among three eminent professional organizations for medical communi- cation professionals—AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP—to advo- cate for the adoption of standards by all stakeholders to better ensure the integrity of published scientific and medical infor- mation. Thus, the following Joint Position Statement has been 2021-17-02 AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP Joint Position Statement on Medical Publications, Preprints, and Peer Review 1. Background In medical publications, just as in research and development, quality depends on the expertise and integrity of researchers/authors as well as qualified peer reviewers and journal editors. However, the laborious and time-consuming process of the traditional peer review1 can be compromised by the pressure to publish quickly—particularly during a health crisis, when timely distribution of credible medical information can make a substantial difference.2 Recent examples of negative consequences are two articles on COVID-19 that were hastily published in high-profile medical journals and subsequently retracted.3,4 Traditional peer review, although not perfect, remains the most frequently used process for vetting scientific publications. However, it has become more common for manuscripts to be released without prior review, which raises new concerns. The potential value of rapid publication should be weighed against the potential harm of inadequate validation of the final output. There is a danger that lowering the threshold of publication oversight sets a precedent that cannot be easily reversed, potentially eroding standards and public trust in medical science.2 We have joined in a multi-party consortium among three eminent professional organizations for medical communication professionals – AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP – to advocate for the adoption of standards by all stakeholders to better ensure the integrity of published scientific and medical information. Thus, the following Joint Position Statement has been developed to provide practical and implementable suggestions to uphold data integrity and quality, and the transparency of medical publications. Note: We use the term “medical writer” to represent the spectrum of professionals who prepare documents either for submission to regulatory authorities or for publication in peer-reviewed journals.5 2. Communication of research: issues and suggested solutions 2.1. Preprints Preprints are preliminary scientific reports that are made publicly available online for anyone to read, comment on, and discuss before they have been peer reviewed. Some preprint servers scrutinize submissions for scope and for basic quality standards before making them publicly available.6,7,8 Once the preprint is posted, most reputable preprint servers assign a unique digital object identifier (DOI) to aid traceability. Authors can revise preprints according to readers’ comments and post iterative versions. Preprints are often not indexed on mainstream bibliographic services, although Europe PMC now indexes preprints,9 and there are standalone tools for searching named preprint servers to improve discoverability.10 F E A T U R E 2021-17-02 AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP Joint Position Statement on Medical Publications, Preprints, and Peer Review 1. Background In medical publications, just as in research and development, quality depends on the expertise and integrity of researchers/authors as well as qualified peer reviewers and journal editors. However, the laborious and time-consuming process of the traditional peer review1 can be compromised by the pressure to publish quickly—particularly during a health crisis, when timely distribution of credible medical information can make a substantial difference.2 Recent examples of negative consequences are two articles on COVID-19 that were hastily published in high-profile medical journals and subsequently retracted.3,4 Traditional peer review, although not perfect, remains the most frequently used process for vetting scientific publications. However, it has become more common for manuscripts to be released without prior review, which raises new concerns. The potential value of rapid publication should be weighed against the potential harm of inadequate validation of the final output. There is a danger that lowering the threshold of publication oversight sets a precedent that cannot be easily reversed, potentially eroding standards and public trust in medical science.2 We have joined in a multi-party consortium among three eminent professional organizations for medical communication professionals – AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP – to advocate for the adoption of standards by all stakeholders to better ensure the integrity of published scientific and medical information. Thus, the following Joint Position Statement has been developed to provide practical and implementable suggestions to uphold data integrity and quality, and the transparency of medical publications. Note: We use the term “medical writer” to represent the spectrum of professionals who prepare documents either for submission to regulatory authorities or for publication in peer-reviewed journals.5 2. Communication of research: issues and suggested solutions 2.1. Preprints Preprints are preliminary scientific reports that are made publicly available online for anyone to read, comment on, and discuss before they have been peer reviewed. Some preprint servers scrutinize submissions for scope and for basic quality standards before making them publicly available.6,7,8 Once the preprint is posted, most reputable preprint servers assign a unique digital object identifier (DOI) to aid traceability. Authors can revise preprints according to readers’ comments and post iterative versions. Preprints are often not indexed on mainstream bibliographic services, although Europe PMC now indexes preprints,9 and there are standalone tools for searching named preprint servers to improve discoverability.10 AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org 59 developed to provide practical and implementable suggestions to uphold data integrity and quality, and the transparency of medical publications. Note: We use the term “medical writer” to represent the spec- trum of professionals who prepare documents either for submission to regulatory authorities or for publication in peer- reviewed journals.5 2. COMMUNICATION OF RESEARCH: ISSUES AND SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS 2.1. Preprints Preprints are preliminary scientific reports that are made pub- licly available online for anyone to read, comment on, and discuss before they have been peer reviewed. Some preprint servers scrutinize submissions for scope and for basic qual- ity standards before making them publicly available.6-8 Once the preprint is posted, most reputable preprint servers assign a unique digital object identifier (DOI) to aid traceability. Authors can revise preprints according to readers’ comments and post iterative versions. Preprints are often not indexed on mainstream bibliographic services, although Europe PMC now indexes preprints,9 and there are standalone tools for searching named preprint servers to improve discoverability.10 Preprints have been rapidly adopted by physicians and sci- entists, their obvious benefits being the immediate availabil- ity to their peers and the public, avoiding lengthy peer-review processes prior to release, and the option of readers to leave comments. However, there are issues associated with preprints that ideally should be addressed by standards jointly devel- oped by a convened body of all stakeholders. Issues with preprints: • While preprints enable rapid release and discussion of data, many are never revised, and only about a third to a half are ever fully published.11,12 • “Once the toothpaste is out of the tube, it cannot (easily) be stuffed back in.”13 Provocative or poor quality research results could be reported by the media, or posted and dis- cussed on social media, with little regard to the preliminary nature of the findings.14,15 No amount of retrospective “tag- ging” will have much effect. Misinformation or deliberately misleading or sloppy science can be freely circulated, cited, and believed ad infinitum, regardless of whether it is ulti- mately debunked and retracted. Our suggested solutions: • Preprints should not be used as references in any medical publication unless these are cited in the manner of a per- sonal communication, that is, as an in-text reference (using the preprint link, DOI, or both) rather than as bibliographic references. It should be clearly disclosed that the source is a preprint. • Clearly distinguishing preprints from peer-reviewed articles might help to reduce the tendency of readers to view the work as fully vetted.14,15 This should be done by ° Watermarking the article, as is done, for example, by medRxiv and bioRxiv, with the information that it has not been peer reviewed. ° Placing a clearly-worded disclosure in the body of the article highlighting that the findings have not been for- mally peer reviewed. • Pre-publication vetting: ° Pre-publication checks by server hosts. MedRxiv per- forms a basic screening process for plagiarism, nonsci- entific content, and material that might pose a health risk, including material that might compromise exist- ing public health measures.7 However, these checks should be more extensive and consistent across server hosts, and a comprehensive checklist should be used (Appendix I). ° Encouraging authors to ensure that preprints that have been subsequently fully published be marked as such on the preprint server and linked via DOI to the fully pub- lished article. 2.2. Post-publication peer review In post-publication peer review, an article is published in its original form, then subjected to informal (as with preprints) as well as invited peer review. For instance, with the model used by the F1000 publishing platform,16 articles are posted online after passing pre-publication checks and after an arti- cle processing charge (APC) is paid. When posted, articles are assigned a DOI and opened to comments from registered users. Expert peer reviewers are invited to review in the usual way. All comments, peer review reports, and article revisions are available with the article, and once the article receives two favorable peer review reports, the final, peer-reviewed version is indexed in external bibliographic databases and becomes fully discoverable. The benefits of this model are similar to those of preprints – rapid access for readers and the option for readers to comment. Issues with post-publication peer review: • The issues with post-publication peer review are basically identical to those of preprints, but it should be noted that the requirement for an APC would potentially discour- age casual or low-quality submissions. Articles are clearly marked as “under peer review,” and the progress of that review is accessible to readers. 60 AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org • As with preprints, articles undergoing post-publication peer review should not be used as references in any medical pub- lication until the peer review process is completed and the article is approved for publication. If the article is cited, we suggest the citation be made in the same manner suggested for preprints. • Issues associated with traditional peer review also apply and are addressed in Section 2.3, below. Our suggested solutions: • Our suggested solutions include those proposed for preprints; however, we suggest that the publication be indexed by main- stream bibliographic databases (if applicable) once it has been fully peer reviewed, as is done on the F1000 platform. 2.3. Traditional peer review Traditional peer review occurs after a submitted article is accepted for consideration by a journal, then passed to expert peer reviewers. The reviewers’ comments are sent to the authors to use in revising their article, or else the arti- cle is rejected after review. For rejected articles, authors can start the process again with another journal. If an article is revised to the peer reviewers’ satisfaction, the article is pub- lished and assigned a DOI, after which the article is indexed in mainstream bibliographic databases. Peer review reports and revisions may or may not be available with the final arti- cle, depending on the peer review model the journal uses. The benefit of traditional peer review is that information is released to the readers only after there has been quality control applied by subject matter experts. Issues with traditional peer review • Lengthy review process, which may impede the timely release of valuable information – particularly in a pandemic or public health crisis • Inadequate time for high-quality peer review • Inconsistency among reviewers • Difficulty in “recruiting” qualified reviewers, given time commitment, particularly in times of health crises when the most appropriate reviewers are likely to have a high clinical workload Our suggested solutions: • Authors: ° Submit rejection comments to second-choice journals, with itemized rebuttals and updates to the manuscript (portable peer review).17,18 ° Be more accepting of editor referrals to cascade journals.19 • Journal editors: ° Accept, request, or require portable peer review as described above, thereby reducing the need for addi- tional review cycles. ° Consider commercial back-end services that expedite peer review (eg, ResearchSquare [https://www. researchsquare.com/], as used by the BMC journals and others). ° Form a rapid response team of reviewers, with appropri- ate expertise, who can provide peer review with a quick turnaround time. • Publishers: ° Standardize formatting requirements to expedite resub- mission.20 ° Offer fast-track options for potentially practice-changing work. ° Consider incentives for reviewers.21 3. SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS FOR ALL FORMATS 3.1. Quality control • Make use of existing publication guidelines22–24 and available checklists25 to ensure high-quality publication development. • Include Clinical Trial Protocols and Statistical Analysis Plans (SAPs) as supplementary material. • Ask all authors to sign an author form confirming that they had full access to the relevant data reported in their article, and accept responsibility for submitting the article for pub- lication. Furthermore, the contributor statement should name the authors (at least 2) who have accessed and verified the underlying data, as suggested in the revised Lancet pub- lication guidelines.26 • Journals should clearly explain the initial quality review that editors perform on newly submitted manuscripts. 3.2. Training in peer review • Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should be adequately trained in the nature and technical aspects of peer review. • Guidelines should be used, such as those created by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE),25 along with the reviewers’ checklist in Appendix I. • Medical journalists and the public should be educated on how preprints and pre-publications differ from peer- reviewed literature. 4. THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL WRITERS AND SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATORS IN EXPEDITING THE PUBLICATION PROCESS • Evidence suggests that the use of professional medical writ- ers enhances publication quality and speed,27–33 and such assistance has been associated with a reduced risk for retrac- tions due to misconduct.34 If a qualified medical writer is https://www.researchsquare.com/ https://www.researchsquare.com/] AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org 61 part of the team, they should be involved in the process as early as possible.5 The medical writer should have access to the clinical study report (if available), source data, and related doc- uments, including statistical outputs and patient narratives, to the extent that data-protection regulations allow. • Professional medical writers should have an active role in ensuring the high quality of publications, including their development, editing, and referencing,22,24,35 and the use of appropriate publication checklists.36 Medical writers and statisticians should be actively involved in peer review, during which the medical writer will critically assess the quality of the manuscript according to common appraisal criteria, thereby augmenting the traditional subject-matter- expert review (Appendix I). • Medical writers could also be involved in pre-publication vet- ting, act as trainers, or both (see Section 3.2). As professional medical writers and communicators, we have identified areas that could benefit from increased quality assurance. We have suggested some processes that we believe would better ensure effective oversight of scientific and medi- cal publications, whether in the context of a health emergency or not. To maintain confidence in published science, each involved party (including the reader) must take responsibility for exercising their best judgment and selecting information from sources with good publishing practices that are rigorous and transparent. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This joint position statement was reviewed and approved by representatives of AMWA, EMWA, and ISMPP. It was also reviewed and approved by representatives of EFSPI (European Federation of Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry). Preparation of this statement was possible thanks to the efforts of the members of the Writing Committee (Slavka Baronikova, Beatrix Doerr, Art Gertel, Andrea Rossi, EMWA; Gail V. Flores and Dikran Toroser, AMWA; Jackie Marchington and Rob Matheis, ISMPP; and Todd Pesavento, The Ohio State University). Also, we thank the independent reviewers, Alison Abritis, Andrea Bucceri, Andrea Cortegiani, Martin Delahunty, Lisa Chamberlain-James, Paolo Morelli, Roger Pickett, Gregory A. Poland, Thomas M. Schindler, and Amy Whereat for their review, insights into further actions, and encouragement. 6. APPENDICES Appendix I: Reviewers’ checklist 7. REFERENCES 1. Rennie D, Flanagin A. Three decades of peer review congresses. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2018;319(4):350-353. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.20606 2. Palayew A, Norgaard O, Safreed-Harmon K, Andersen TH, Rasmussen LN, Lazarus JV. Pandemic publishing poses a new COVID-19 challenge. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4(7):666-669. doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0911-0 3. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020;0(0). doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6 4. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, Henry TD, Patel AN. Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(25):e102. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2007621 5. AMWA-EMWA-ISMPP joint position statement on the role of professional medical writers. 2017. Accessed November 27, 2017. http://journal. emwa.org/writing-better/amwa-emwa-ismpp-joint-position-statement- on-the-role-of-professional-medical-writers 6. bioRxiv. Advancing the sharing of research results for the life sciences. bioRxiv. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.biorxiv.org/about- biorxiv 7. medRxiv. Submit your article to bioRxiv, an online archive and distribution service for preprints in the life sciences. medRxiv. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-manuscript 8. Preprints.org. Preprints.org: How it works. preprints.org. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www.preprints.org/how_it_works#screen 9. Levchenko M. Preprints in Europe PMC: Reducing friction for discoverability. Europe PMC. Accessed September 21, 2020. http://blog. europepmc.org/2018/07/preprints.html 10. Iwema CL, LaDue J, Zack A, Chattopadhyay A. search.bioPreprint: A discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles [version 2; referees: 2 approved]. F1000Research. 2016;5. doi:10.12688/ F1000RESEARCH.8798.2 11. Abdill RJ, Blekhman R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. Elife. 2019;8. doi:10.7554/eLife.45133 12. Fraser N, Momeni F, Mayr P, Peters I. The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quant Sci Stud. April 2020:1-21. doi:10.1162/qss_a_00043 13. Gertel A. The data economy | Rush to publication – What do we have to lose? Med Writ. 2020;29(2). Accessed September 21, 2020. https://journal. emwa.org/the-data-economy/rush-to-publication-what-do-we-have- to-lose 14. Maslove DM. Medical preprints – a debate worth having. JAMA - J Am Med Assoc. 2018;319(5):443-444. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.17566 15. Penfold NC, Polka JK. Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences. Shafee T, ed. PLOS Genet. 2020;16(4):e1008565. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565 16. F1000Research. About F1000Research | How it works | Beyond a research journal. F1000Research. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://f1000research.com/about 17. Wiley. Catheterization and cardiovascular interventions. Author Guidelines. Wiley. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/page/journal/1522726x/homepage/forauthors.html 18. Bell GP, Kvajo M. Tackling waste in publishing through portable peer review. BMC Biol. 2018;16(1):146. doi:10.1186/s12915-018-0619-z 19. Taylor & Francis. Article transfers - Author services. Taylor & Francis. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis. com/peer-review/transfers 20. Wiley. Free format submission. Wiley. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/ Prepare/free-format-submission.html 21. Tennant JP, Ross-Hellauer T. The limitations to our understanding of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5(1):6. doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00092-1 22. Battisti WP, Wager E, Baltzer L, et al. Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPP3. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(6):461-464. doi:10.7326/M15-0288 continued on page 63 http://journal.emwa.org/writing-better/amwa-emwa-ismpp-joint-position-statement-on-the-role-of-professional-medical-writers https://www.biorxiv.org/about-biorxiv https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-manuscript https://www.preprints.org/how_it_works#screen http://blog.europepmc.org/2018/07/preprints.html https://journal.emwa.org/the-data-economy/rush-to-publication-what-do-we-have-to-lose https://f1000research.com/about https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/1522726x/homepage/forauthors.html https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/peer-review/transfers https://authorservices.wiley.com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/Prepare/free-format-submission.html 62 AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org REVIEWERS’ CHECKLIST This checklist is intended to be used by journals. However, it can also guide authors and medical writers in their review of manuscripts before submission. The checks should be performed by a suitably qualified team, preferably consisting of editors, subject matter experts (ie, peer reviewers; not required for preprints), medical writers, statisticians, and trained researchers. The review team should comprise at least two reviewers. Not every reviewer is required to complete all fields, but all items need to be checked by at least one accountable reviewer. Item Medical Writer Reviewer Clinical Reviewer Biostatistical Reviewer Peer Reviewer A Peer Reviewer B Source documents (if available and required by journal) Clinical Study Protocol Redacted Clinical Study Report Synopsis Statistical Analysis Plan Tables/Listings/Graphs Attestations Data sharing statement (ICMJE template) Author contribution forma Signed author forms confirming that the authors had full access to the data reported in the article and accept responsibility for submitting the articleb Author confirmation that verified data were used to develop the manuscript Conflict of interest statement (ICMJE template recommended) List of sources of funding for the study and any supporting activities Suggested Checks for Preprint Editorial Review Manuscript contains no offensive or nonscientific content No material is plagiarized Basics of the statistical methods are sound (eg, adequacy of analysis population, adequate handling of missing data) End points and inclusion/exclusion criteria are in alignment with the study registration on a publicly available registry (eg, ClinicalTrials.gov), provided this is required. For primary reports of clinical trials, all end points are mentioned in the results section. Content is consistent and clear across each section of the manuscript (eg, information in abstract matches results, hypothesis posed in introduction is addressed in discussion) Discussion points and conclusions are supported by the reported data Adherence to guidelines (eg, CONSORT, STROBE, PRISMA, SPIRIT, CARE) Specify guideline(s):______________________ No ethical concerns Additional Checks for Peer Review Further statistical considerations: - adequacy of sample size calculation (eg, adequate comparator) - adequacy of statistical methods - check for random errors - sources of bias addressed Methodological qualityc - confounding influences (eg, concomitant treatments) - inadequate disclosure of information - misinterpretation Study designb - adequacy and relevance of endpoints - adequacy of inclusion/exclusion criteria - blinding - adequacy of follow-up period - adequacy of reporting complications - adequacy of data presentation aShould include a question if medical writing support was used. bMay be merged with author contribution form. cAdapted from MEDDEV 2.7/1; alternatively, other criteria can be used to appraise the manuscript (eg, https://libguides.napier.ac.uk/litrev/critapp). Additional columns and signature lines can be added as needed. https://libguides.napier.ac.uk/litrev/critapp AMWA Journal / V36 N2 / 2021 / amwa.org 63 23. ICMJE. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. ICMJE. 2019. Accessed September 21, 2020. http://www.icmje.org/ recommendations 24. Matcham J, Julious S, Pyke S, et al. Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 10(1):70-73. doi:10.1002/pst.417 25. Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers (English) | COPE: Committee on publication ethics. doi:10.24318/cope.2019.1.9 26. The editors of the Lancet Group. Learning from a retraction. Lancet. 2020;396(10257):1056. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31958-9 27. Jacobs A. Adherence to the CONSORT guideline in papers written by professional medical writers. Med Writ. 2010;19(3):196-200. 28. Gattrell WT, Hopewell S, Young K, et al. Professional medical writing support and the quality of randomised controlled trial reporting: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2016;6(2):e010329. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010329 29. Bailey M. Science editing and its effect on manuscript acceptance time. J Am Med Writ Assoc. 2011;26:147-152. 30. Hamilton CW, Gertel A, Jacobs A, Marchington J, Weaver S, Woolley K. Mythbusting medical writing: Goodbye ghosts, hello help. Account Res. 2016;23(3):178-194. doi:10.1080/08989621. 2015.1088788 31. Woolley KL, Ely JA, Woolley MJ, et al. Declaration of medical writing assistance in international, peer-reviewed publications and effect of pharmaceutical sponsorship. Fifth Int Congr Peer Rev Biomed Publ Chicago. 2006;296(8):932-934. doi:10.1001/ jama.296.8.932-b 32. Breugelmans R, Barron JP. The role of in-house medical communications centers in medical institutions in nonnative English-speaking countries. Chest. 2008;134(4):883-885. doi:10.1378/chest.08-1068 33. Manring MMM, Panzo JA, Mayerson JL. A framework for improving resident research participation and scholarly output. J Surg Educ. 2014;71(1):8-13. doi:10.1016/j.jsurg.2013.07.011 34. Woolley KL, Lew RA, Stretton S, et al. Lack of involvement of medical writers and the pharmaceutical industry in publications retracted for misconduct: a systematic, controlled, retrospective study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(6):1175-1182. doi:10.1185/0300 7995.2011.573546 35. Chipperfield L, Citrome L, Clark J, et al. Authors’ submission toolkit: a practical guide to getting your research published. Curr Med Res Opin. 2010;26(8):1967-1982. doi:10.1185/03007995. 2010.499344 36. The EQUATOR network | Enhancing the QUAlity and transparency of health research. Accessed September 21, 2020. https://www. equator-network.org DIA June 27 to July 1, 2021 Virtual https://www.diaglobal.org/Flagship/DIA-2021 Regulatory Affairs Professionals Society September 12-15, 2021 Virtual https://www.raps.org/regulatory-convergence National Association of Science Writers October 8-11, 2021 Boulder, Colorado, and Virtual https://www.nasw.org/events/sciencewriters2021 International Society of Managing and Technical Editors October 11-14, 2021 Virtual https://www.ismte.org/page/Conferences International Conference on Communication in Healthcare October 17-20, 2021 Virtual https://achonline.org/ICCH2021 American Public Health Association October 24-27, 2021 Denver, Colorado, and Virtual https://www.apha.org/events-and-meetings/annual AMWA Medical Writing & Communication Conference October 27-29, 2021 Virtual www.amwa.org/conference Association of Health Care Journalists October 28-31, 2021 Austin, TX https://healthjournalism.org/calendar-details.php?id=2245 European Medical Writers Association November 4-6, 2021 Cascais, Portugal https://www.emwa.org/conferences/future-conferences/ CALENDAR OF MEETINGS Please confirm with individual meeting hosts www.amwa.org/conference 2021 AMWA Medical Writing & Communication Conference OCTOBER 27-29, 2021 Coming to a device near you Trends and Opportunities for Medical Communicators continued from page 61