Weekly digest: NISO OABP, effective plain language summaries and PLS for APAC

This week, we encourage readers to comment on draft OABP recommendations from NISO and complete a survey exploring how to make PLS clearer and more accessible. We also read guidance on how to make PLS accessible in APAC, and we consider when and how to retract an article. We review insights on transparent peer review based on experiences at the European Journal of Higher Education and ask if pharma is ready to rethink implementation for patient centricity. Finally, we listen to the latest MAPS Elevate podcast, which explores how to improve your journal selection process.

To engage with:

Shape the future of open access publishing via NISO

The National Information Standards Organization (NISO) has released a draft of its Open Access Business Processes (OABP) recommendations for public review. The consultation allows publication professionals, journal editors, medical writers and open science advocates to shape future OA practices. Three recommendations stand out for their alignment with the Open Pharma vision: 3.9, all authors should provide a validated person persistent identifier (e.g. ORCID) at submission; 3.16, authors must provide accurate, unambiguous funding information; and 3.26, publishers should offer clear instructions on OA options, pricing and payment methods. Be sure to review the draft and submit your comments by 17 October.

Which trial summary speaks to you? via University College Cork

Researchers at University College Cork and the University of Aberdeen are inviting members of the public to help answer a vital question: How can we make plain language summaries of clinical trials clearer and more accessible? In this short survey, you’ll be shown two versions of a summary for seven different studies. Your task? Choose the one you prefer and explain why. The survey is open to anyone over the age of 18, and the results will be used to enhance the communication of clinical trial findings to the public. Take the survey here.

To read:

Publishing plain language summaries for an APAC audience via BMC Research Notes | 12-minute read

Plain language summaries (PLS) are intended to be accessible to all readers through their use of concise and inclusive language and formatting. However, cultural and linguistic differences can limit the accessibility of plain language content for audiences, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region (APAC). This article highlights key considerations including language selection, imagery and editorial support that should be considered when preparing a PLS for an APAC audience. Successfully integrating these considerations could enhance engagement with scientific literature in the APAC region, supporting shared decision-making and patient-centred care.

When and how to retract an article via COPE | 3-minute read

Retraction of an article is sometimes necessary to uphold the integrity of scientific literature. However, determining when to retract raises important considerations: How promptly should a retraction be issued? What information should be included in a retraction notice? What is the best approach for batch retractions? The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has updated its Retraction guidelines to provide clear and practical advice to help editors make informed decisions about when and how to retract.

Transparent peer review: from pilot to progress via Taylor & Francis | 5-minute read

In 2023, the European Journal of Higher Education introduced a transparent peer review policy with the aim of enhancing accountability, trust and openness in peer review. The policy mandated the open publication of anonymous peer review reports alongside the original article in the supplementary material. Following the launch of the policy, Taylor & Francis surveyed authors and reviewers to assess experiences with transparent peer review. This article explores the results of the survey to inform similar future initiatives.

Is pharma ready to rethink implementation for patient centricity? via Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research | 9-minute read

As medical communicators, we often talk about patient centricity, but are drug development and launch strategies genuinely designed with the patient at their core? This article by Melvin (Skip) Olson (Founder of Olson Strategies) and Rita Freitas (Global Market Access Lead at Grünenthal Group) challenges the traditional drug-centric pharma model and introduces a compelling alternative: implementation readiness. Rather than stopping at regulatory approval or reimbursement, this approach goes further by focusing on how innovative therapies can be successfully integrated into real-world care and truly serve patient communities.

To listen to:

Smarter journal selection starts with data via Elevate Podcast | 22-minute read

In this episode of the Medical Affairs Professional Society (MAPS) Elevate podcast, Mike Cashman (Senior Director at Mavens Scientific Publications Cloud) and Mike Taylor (Head of Data Insights and Customer Analytics at Digital Science) join Garth Sundem (Editorial Director at MAPS) to explore how analytics can transform journal targeting. Analyzing audience data – such as readership, citations and engagement – helps publication teams choose journals that offer real impact, not strong reputational clout. Listen to the full episode here.

---

Enjoy our content? Read last week’s digest and check out our guest blog!

Don’t forget to follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn for regular updates!