This week, we explore how to collaborate effectively while using genAI, how genAI can enhance data sharing practices, and how the NIH is approaching its newly announced top priorities and funding review. We read a critical analysis of the S2O publishing model and the key takeaways from the Principles of Open Science Monitoring, and we highlight Emerald Publishing’s implementation of Dimensions Author Check. Finally, we review the performance, risks and ethics of using AI to generate plain language medical information.
To read:
Transforming medical communications collaborations through generative AI via The MAP newsletter | 13-minute read
Generative artificial intelligence (genAI) has the potential to speed up content development in medical communications. It can also improve accessibility by supporting the preparation of a variety of content formats. However, differing expectations around the use of genAI could harm collaborations between pharma companies and medical communications agencies. In this article, the authors explore the challenges of using genAI in these collaborations and highlight 10 top tips to successfully use genAI in medical communications, with impact and feasibility ratings based on audience voting from the 2025 Annual Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals.
Generative AI tools to improve data sharing via The Publication Plan | 2-minute read
Existing challenges with data sharing include a lack of recognition within academia of its benefits, inconsistent guidance that may not align with the FAIR (Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability and Reuse) principles, and unclear data sharing policies. Niki Scaplehorn (Director of Content Innovation at Springer Nature) and Henning Schoenenberger (Vice President of Content Innovation at Springer Nature) recently discussed using AI to automate metadata creation, flag missing documentation or overlooked requirements, and suggest best practices to improve workflows. They encourage viewing open science AI tools as services that will address researchers’ needs and reduce time and administrative burdens.
NIH publishes its top research priorities via Science | 4-minute read
Jayanta ‘Jay’ Bhattacharya (Director of the National Institutes of Health [NIH]) has announced the top research priorities for the NIH, with a statement detailing their “unified strategy”. Among the priorities are AI research, nutrition, and the development of a platform to collect real-world data from Medicare and Medicaid. In this article, Jocelyn Kaiser (Staff Writer at Science) discusses the new strategy and highlights concerns from both within and outside the NIH, including reactions to the announcement of another funding review, which could lead to projects that don’t align with the new priorities being paused or terminated.
The potential pitfalls of the S2O publishing model via The Scholarly Kitchen | 8-minute read
The argument that the money is “already in the system” is often used to support the transition away from journal subscription fees to open access publishing, including the subscribe-to-open (S2O) model. However, Rick Anderson (University Librarian at Brigham Young University) expresses mixed feelings about this stance, noting that the implications for institutional budget allocations may not be so clear-cut. To participate in S2O – often seen as optional rather than essential – funders must ensure that their institutions fully understand and support what their budget is actually funding.
Key takeaways from the Principles of Open Science Monitoring via STM Publishing News | 3-minute read
Developed by the Open Science Monitoring Initiative, the Principles of Open Science Monitoring are now available online. These principles were developed in collaboration with almost 200 experts from around the world as a response to the 2021 UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science, and they provide guidance to institutions, funders, governments and open infrastructure providers. As part of the process, OpenAIRE also provided feedback on their experiences developing open monitoring services in Europe, including the OpenAIRE Graph and the Open Science Observatory.
Emerald Publishing implements Dimensions Author Check via Research Information | 2-minute read
Emerald Publishing have incorporated the Dimensions Author Check into their publishing workflow to streamline and enhance research integrity and transparency processes. This workflow allows publishers to review the publishing history of authors, editors and reviewers so that unusual activities – such as expressions of concern, retractions or atypical collaboration patterns – can be identified. Sally Wilson (Vice President of Publishing at Emerald Publishing) explains that implementing this author check will help verify author credentials and ensure that they “meet [Emerald’s] editorial standards and ethical expectations”.
Key considerations for using AI to generate plain language medical information via Dovepress | 25-minute read
GenAI tools are being used more frequently by non-specialist audiences as a source of convenient and easily accessed plain language medical information. However, inaccurately generated information can lead to negative health outcomes, particularly because human-like responses from AI tools can inspire trust. In this review of 44 journal articles conducted from January 2023 to July 2024, researchers evaluated the performance and risks associated with using genAI and large language models in this way. The authors also offer ethical recommendations for AI model developers and regulators.
Enjoy our content? Read last week’s digest and check out our latest guest blog post!
Don’t forget to follow us on Bluesky and LinkedIn for regular updates!
