Skip to main content
Log in

Don’t Get Spooked! How to Collaborate with a Professional Medical Communicator (And Avoid Ghostwriting)

  • VARIA – ETHICS IN SCIENCE
  • Published:
Archivum Immunologiae et Therapiae Experimentalis Aims and scope

Abstract

Substantial confusion exists about the role of medical writers and editors (hereafter, medical communicators) in medical publication. Much of the confusion is due to the failure to recognize the difference between terms. Ghostwriting is unethical, whereas professional medical communication refers to legitimate writing and editing services provided by individuals who comply with ethical guidelines. The purpose of this article is to shed light on this subject by reviewing relevant guidelines and by providing practical tips for authors interested in collaborating with medical communicators. Specifically, this article addresses a series of questions, such as what to expect from medical communicators, how to evaluate them, and how to collaborate ethically and efficiently with them. To ensure that the process is ethical, authors should begin collaborating with the medical communicator early in the process, continue doing so throughout manuscript development, and control manuscript content. In addition, authors should disclose substantial contributions and funding sources of the medical communicator and all other individuals not meeting authorship criteria. To ensure that the process is efficient, authors should delegate time-consuming technical writing and editing tasks to the medical communicator.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AMWA:

American Medical Writers Association

BELS:

The Board of Editors in the Life Sciences

CONSORT:

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

COPE:

Committee on Publication Ethics

CSE:

Council of Science Editors

EMWA:

European Medical Writers Association

EQUATOR:

Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research

GPP2:

Good Publication Practice (GPP2) for Communicating Company-Sponsored Medical Research

ICMJE:

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

ISMPP:

The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals

MOOSE:

Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

PRISMA:

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SOP:

Standard operating procedure

STARD:

Standards for the Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

WAME:

World Association of Medical Editors

References

  • COPE (1997) Committee on Publication Ethics. Available via http://publicationethics.org. Accessed 15 April 2010

  • Daskalopoulou SS, Mikhailidis DP (2005) The involvement of professional medical writers in medical publications. Curr Med Res Opin 21:307–310

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin A (2007) Ethical and legal considerations. In: Iverson C, Christiansen S, Flanagin A et al (eds) AMA manual of style. A guide for authors and editors. Oxford, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Gøtzsche PC, Kassirer JP, Woolley KL et al (2009) What should be done to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature? PLoS Med 6:e23

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D et al (2009) Research methods & reporting. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ 339:4330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton CW (2009) On the table: form and function. Chest 135:1087–1089

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton CW, Royer MG (2003) AMWA position statement on the contributions of medical writers to scientific publications. AMWA J 18:13–15

    Google Scholar 

  • ICMJE (2008) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. Available via http://www.icmje.org/index.html. Accessed 13 April 2010

  • Jacobs A, Wager E (2005) European Medical Writers Association (EMWA) guidelines on the role of medical writers in developing peer-reviewed publications. Curr Med Res Opin 21:317–321

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Moser M, McMurray B, Sanes-Miller C et al (2010) GPP2: Good Publication Practices for Sponsored Medical Research: evaluating the integrity of scientific communications. Med Roundtable Cardiovasc Ed 1:120–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris R, Bowman A, Fagan JM et al (2007) International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) position statement: the role of the professional medical writer. Curr Med Res Opin 23:1837–1840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips SG, Carey LA, Biedermann G (2001) Attitudes toward writing and writing assistance in peer-reviewed articles. AMWA J 16:10–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Rennie D, Flanagin A (1994) Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA 271:469–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med (in press)

  • Scott-Lichter D (2009) Editorial Policy Committee, council of science editors’ white paper on promoting integrity in Scientific Journal Publications. Available via http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/whitepaper/entire_whitepaper.pdf. Accessed 8 March 2010

  • Simera I, Moher D, Hoey J et al (2010) A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research. Eur J Clin Invest 40:35–53

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • WAME (1995) Policy statements. Available via http://www.wame.org/. Accessed 13 April 2010

  • Woolley KL (2006) Goodbye Ghostwriters! How to work ethically and efficiently with professional medical writers. Chest 130:921–923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley KL, Barron JP (2009) Handling manuscript rejection: insights from evidence and experience. Chest 135:573–577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author received no specific funding for this article. The author has published and presented papers on ethical medical communication practices, is a member of professional associations for medical communicators, and provides professional medical communication services to authors from academic, biotechnology, medical device, and pharmaceutical organizations. I thank Anne K. Derbes for editing this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cindy W. Hamilton.

Additional information

Based on a lecture delivered at an international conference “Current challenges in medical communication: diagnosing and curing unethical practices” organized by the Polish Academy of Sciences on October 7, 2010 in Warsaw.

About this article

Cite this article

Hamilton, C.W. Don’t Get Spooked! How to Collaborate with a Professional Medical Communicator (And Avoid Ghostwriting). Arch. Immunol. Ther. Exp. 58, 255–261 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-010-0080-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00005-010-0080-3

Keywords

Navigation