Poll Results—Bridging Disciplines: What is the Best Path to Publishing Together?

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. 

Now let’s find out how you responded and read through some commentary (for context only; not meant to be comprehensive) to the below scenario:

You lead a study on environmental factors and human health, generating data that could potentially change practice. Multiple institutions and experts from diverse fields, such as environmental science, epidemiology, and public health, contributed to the study, each with different publication priorities, speed, collaboration, transparency. Now you must decide on the best approach for publishing the findings.

What would you do?

A. Ensure that the authors of the primary paper reflect the range of research fields involved in the study, while recognizing that a large author group may delay manuscript development and publication. The resulting publication would present the scientific findings and integrate insights from different perspectives, contributing to a holistic understanding of the research.

B. Ensure that the authors of the primary paper reflect the range of researchers and the lay public, who will ultimately benefit from the findings. This approach could involve creating accessible summaries, infographics, and interactive content that communicate the key findings to a broader audience, and/or organizing virtual town hall meetings or online forums to engage with the public and gather different perspectives.

C. Focus on publishing the results quickly with a small author list, by uploading a preprint of the manuscript to a reputable server. A preprint would provide immediate access to the research community, accelerate the sharing of knowledge, and allow experts to engage with and weigh in on the findings before the formal peer-review process.

D. Focus on publishing the results quickly with a small author list, by publishing in an outlet that supports post-publication peer review, whereby the article can undergo scrutiny and receive feedback from the scientific community even after it is published. This approach allows continuous improvement and refinement of the research based on real-world input. (see, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4472664/).

A total of 25 people replied to this poll.

This scenario describes a study examining the relationship between environmental factors and human health outcomes, generating evidence with the potential to inform and change current practice. The research was conducted through a collaboration of multiple institutions and experts spanning several distinct but interconnected functions such as environmental science, epidemiology, and public health. It can be assumed with such a large study there will be many secondary publications possible, such as outcomes according to demographic features or geography, disease-related analyses, and deeper dives into implications of results according to specific scientific functions or health policies.

Given the breadth and scope of the work, particular attention must be paid to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in authorship and contributorship, and GPP 2022 and ICMJE criteria provide guidance [1, 2]. Ideally, early in the process all institutions involved in the study would have recognized the need to pull together a committee (analogous to a publication steering committee for clinical trials) to adjudicate authorship considerations and long-term publication planning and responsibilities. This committee would represent consensus building in authorship selection and ensure fair application of, and opportunity to meet, ICMJE criteria.

It is important to note that not every role, function, or organization is automatically included on the byline of every manuscript just because of participation in the study. Authorship and accountability remain anchored to ICMJE criteria for the analyses and conclusions pertaining to any specific analysis and inclusion as an author must not be assumed due to proximity to the study. Some large studies or consortiums may designate a group name to be assigned on the byline, with or without the names of individuals. Other meaningful contributions would be clearly disclosed and acknowledged in the manuscript; transparency serves as a mechanism to assign credit across large, collaborative research efforts in which only a subset of individuals can appear on the byline.

The following are important considerations:

• A multidisciplinary steering committee including the study lead/sponsor discusses a publication plan that optimally supports communication of key study findings and authorship based strictly on ICMJE criteria (not affiliation, discipline, seniority, funding, or network membership).
• With multiple secondary analyses planned, publication timelines and authorship will necessarily differ by topic and discipline. Timing of data availability will depend on the specific analyses undertaken, and authorship will reflect the direct intellectual contribution to each individual research question. Taking this long-term view helps clarify publication and authorship opportunities beyond the primary dataset.
• For non-authors who play meaningful roles (eg, data collection, modeling, statistics, working in disciplines that are not the primary focus of the current manuscript), their contributions are formally recognized through detailed contributorship statements and acknowledgements in the publication. Transparency is prioritized, ensuring all contributions are visible and appropriately credited so those not included as authors do not feel excluded.

In the absence of any further context or insights on the specific goals and objectives of the study team or the publication plan, any of the proposed approaches could be reasonable. From a healthcare industry perspective, Options A and B are more common, and a holistic view of all potential publications would help the team not do too much with the primary analysis. A robust set of secondary analyses will ensure meaningful data continue to be shared with the public over time, more team members have the opportunity author publications, and additional communication channels beyond journal article publication can be explored.

Eric Y. Wong, PhD, MBA, ISMPP CMPP^TM, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine

This article was prepared by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed within are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine or of ISMPP.

References

DeTora LM, et al. Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines for Company-Sponsored Biomedical Research: 2022 Update. Ann Intern Med. 2022 Sep;175(9):1298-1304. doi: 10.7326/M22-1460. Epub 2022 Aug 30.

Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (updated January 2026): http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf