Medical publication policies and guidelines offer a framework for best practices, but there may be situations when more than one approach seems reasonable. The primary purpose of “What Would You Do?” is to explore examples of such situations. With the limited information provided to interpret the scenarios, you may find yourself agreeing with one, more than one, or none of the proposed actions. And that’s the point ‒ you should debate, contemplate, and communicate (with a comment) before selecting your “best” answer.
You are the medical writer on a real-world evidence (RWE) manuscript that was initiated 2 years ago. The RWE analyses utilize the services of a third-party data analytics company. At first draft stage, the project was put on hold. The project owner has now left the organization and the manuscript has been transitioned to a colleague. The lead author would like to perform additional analyses and include one of their colleagues as an author. Meanwhile, the new project owner/client would like to finalize and submit the article as soon as possible. What would you do?
A. Recommend to the lead author to continue with the manuscript in its current state, as the priority for the project owner is to publish as soon as possible and without inclusion of new author.
B. Explain the value of performing additional analyses (and spending budget with the third-party analytics company) to the new project owner/client, although this will introduce further delays. Include the new author after aligning with all authors/stakeholders.
C. Convene a conference call between all the authors and relevant internal stakeholders to take a consensus on the best way forward. If the new author is added, all authors need to agree, and the new author must review and approve the manuscript draft.
D. The additional analyses look simple enough. Carry out the calculations in Excel and circulate the updated draft for final approval without including the new author.
This poll is now closed. Poll results will be released in November 2024.