You are the Publication Lead at a mid-size biotech company who is working with the scientific/medical writing team of your medical communications agency. The lead author of a meta-analysis manuscript received a rejection notice from a journal that stated “…although the topic may be of interest to the readership, the Editors are concerned about the perception of bias given the statement of funding support from the sponsor and the participation of a paid, professional medical writer.” The lead author has emailed all authors, sponsor, and medical communications agency suggesting that the manuscript be revised by the authors alone so that acknowledgement of the medical writer and funding from the sponsor to support medical writing can be removed prior to resubmission to a new journal.
What Would You Do?
A. Acknowledge and agree to the decision of the lead author if the other authors are aligned as well; provided they change the manuscript sufficiently, there is little choice but to comply with their direction.
B. Offer to appeal the original decision of the journal noting that medical writing with sponsor support is a widely accepted practice and there is transparent reporting of the relationship.
C. Offer to contact the editor of the new target journal to inquire if the acknowledgement of medical writing with sponsor support (as it is in the current draft) will influence the journal’s decision on the manuscript.
D. Remind the authors that medical writing support with funding from the sponsor must be acknowledged even if the manuscript is revised and reinforce with the authors that medical writing support with disclosure is a widely accepted practice.
This poll is closed. Poll results will be posted in early August 2022.