![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/EMWA-banner.jpg?resize=1360%2C554&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
The 58th<\/sup> European Medical Writers Association (EMWA<\/a>) Conference began with a series of Hybrid Conference days where attendees learned about the latest trends in reporting and conducting real-world evidence (RWE) studies, explored best practices for medical translation, and heard from journal publishers about how to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by artificial intelligence (AI) in medical writing. The Publication Plan were in attendance to summarise the sessions for the benefit of those who were unable to attend, and as a timely reminder of the key topics for those who did. You can read our summary of the session on Publisher Perspectives on AI below.<\/p>\n Our summaries of the RWE Medical Translation symposia can be found here<\/strong><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n KEY TAKEAWAYS<\/strong><\/p>\n This session provided a key insight into the evolving landscape of AI in scientific publishing, from the perspective of both publishers and journal editors. The panel presented the latest guidance for authors on AI usage, the perspectives of publishers on integrating AI into their workflows, and the attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards the use of AI.<\/p>\n The session began with an introduction from co-chairs Andrea Bucceri and Martin Delahunty. Delahunty cast minds back to November 2022 when ChatGPT<\/a> first hit the scene, recalling the positive reaction from both the medical writing and publishing community. Summarising the goal of the session, Annette Flanagin (Journal of the American Medical Association; <\/em>JAMA) established the need to distinguish the good, the bad, and the ugly elements of AI in the scientific publishing sphere.<\/p>\n \u201cHow can we differentiate the good, the bad, and the ugly?\u201d <\/em>\u2013 Annette Flanagin<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Kelly Ann Soldavin (Taylor & Francis Group) discussed generative AI publishing policies and real-world uses of AI in publications. One of the key highlights from publisher and journal policies, as well as publisher organisations, was that generative AI cannot be listed as an author and that the use of generative AI must be disclosed. Authors are ultimately responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of their content. Overall guidance for disclosing the use of generative AI includes:<\/p>\n Guidelines on the use of AI-generated text and images vary for different publishers and individual publishers have their own policies on how AI tools can be used. Generally, appropriate use of generative AI by authors includes:<\/p>\n Having specific guidance for different areas of publishing is important, with many policies including separate guidance for editors and peer reviewers<\/a>. This is illustrated in the AI guidelines <\/a>at Taylor & Francis. As a continually evolving field, Taylor & Francis are considering potential updates to their AI policy in 2025, with wider updates expected from other publishers<\/a>, organisations and governments.<\/p>\n \u201cIf you are not sure, talk to your editor, talk to the journal.\u201d \u2013 <\/em>Kelly Ann Soldavin<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Flanagin further discussed the use of AI from a publisher\u2019s perspective, noting how AI-related publications have increased in the last year, and notably, cases where ChatGPT was listed as a co-author. In line with most publisher policies, the policy at JAMA<\/a> specifies that AI cannot be accountable for authorship.<\/p>\n \u201cNonhuman artificial intelligence, language models, machine learning, or similar technologies do not qualify for authorship.\u201d <\/em>\u2013 Annette\u00a0Flanagin<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n At JAMA, there are clear instructions for authors<\/a> on the use of AI, and authors are asked to disclose if AI was used in the manuscript submission form. In 2023\/24, ~1.6% of authors disclosed AI use, most commonly:<\/p>\n AI is not used to make editorial decisions; however, a collection of AI-like tools are used to aid editor assessments and improve process efficiencies. These tools still require human review and oversight for accuracy, and examples include:<\/p>\n JAMA are asking reviewers not to use AI for peer review<\/a>, particularly as material is confidential. Only 0.6% of reviewers currently acknowledge using AI, mainly for language issues or to see if a statistical test was appropriate for the study design.<\/p>\n Although it is unusual for publishers to frequently update their policies, JAMA updated their policy in March 2023,<\/a> which reflects how rapidly AI is progressing and further changes may still be expected.<\/p>\n Jessamy Bagenal (The Lancet<\/em>) continued the session, noting key similarities and differences in the uses and guidelines for AI<\/a> at The Lancet<\/em>:<\/p>\n Both Flanagin and Bagenal agreed that the field is rapidly evolving and policies could all be subject to change.<\/p>\n In the next talk, Anannya Mohapatra (Springer Nature), described her role in using AI to enhance publishing processes and advance tools and strategies to support researchers, publishers, and HCPs.<\/p>\n Large language models (LLMs) and generative AI can transform the way we write, with many researchers using AI for research-focused and non-research related tasks. At Springer Nature, internal AI tools have been developed for editors and medical writers to aid content creation, which allows a \u2018human-machine handshake\u2019 with LLMs. The tools are currently used for:<\/p>\n Although these tools streamline processes and reduce timelines, all content is verified and fact-checked by humans to ensure reliability and accuracy. This was described as a \u2018human-AI partnership in medical writing\u2019, with specific roles that are suited to AI versus a human. As with other publishers, AI is not accepted as a credited author<\/a> at Springer Nature, and use of AI tools should be declared in the summary itself.<\/p>\n \u201cAI is a means, not an end. [The] focus is always on the user and a human-centred approach to AI.\u201d<\/em> – Anannya Mohapatra<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Concluding, Mohapatra described newly developed tools, including a tool for editorial summaries of articles for authors, and a tool that generates PLS of research for a pharma industry and HCP audience.<\/p>\n In the final presentation of the session, Adrian Mulligan (Elsevier) gave an insight into clinicians\u2019 attitudes towards AI. The session covered highlights from an Elsevier 2024 study \u2018Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI\u2019<\/a>, which contained ~1000 responses from clinicians over 85 countries.<\/p>\n Awareness of AI was high among clinicians, with the majority saying they were familiar with AI in some form. Interestingly, only around half of clinicians had actually used AI. ChatGPT was by far the most well-known AI tool, although it was pointed out that as the study was performed 9 months ago, the findings today may shift due to the rapidly changing field. Results from the survey indicate that institutions need support in conveying their AI usage restrictions and preparations to clinicians.<\/p>\n The attitudes of clinicians towards AI are mixed, but are more positive than negative. Clinicians recognise clear opportunities for AI, including:<\/p>\n The concerns listed by clinicians included the potential for misinformation or errors and the erosion of human critical thinking.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cAlthough there would be many benefits, it would also wreak havoc if false information were spread.\u201d<\/em> \u2013 Nurse (Mexico) respondent to the Insights 2024: Attitudes toward AI <\/em>study<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Clinicians believe that AI must be responsible, ethical, and transparent and they see many benefits of integrating AI into their workload, including for:<\/p>\n The survey highlighted that clinicians want \u2018guard rails\u2019 around AI, and they don\u2019t want the relationship with the patient to be lost.<\/p>\n Delahunty brought the absorbing session to a close, encouraging EMWA members to empower themselves and be better informed and feel more confident when having discussions around AI with research authors, agencies, and clients alike as the field continues to evolve.<\/p>\n Why not read our summaries from the RWE and Medical Translation symposia\u00a0here<\/strong><\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/em><\/p>\n Written as part of a Media Partnership between EMWA and The Publication Plan, by <\/em>Aspire Scientific<\/em><\/a>, a proudly independent medical writing and communications agency that believes in putting people first.<\/em><\/p>\nPublisher perspectives on AI: Empowering medical writers for the future<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n\n
\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Sunset_horseriders.jpeg?resize=1360%2C762&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nGenerative AI publishing policies<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Signposts.jpeg?resize=1360%2C905&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nThe JAMA<\/em> perspective<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/AIoptions.jpeg?resize=1360%2C962&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
\n
The Lancet <\/em>perspective<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
AI tools to enhance publishing processes<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Connection.jpeg?resize=1360%2C754&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nA clinician\u2019s perspective<\/strong><\/h5>\n
\n
\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/digitalhealthcare.jpeg?resize=1360%2C567&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n
Closing remarks<\/strong><\/h5>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/11\/Summary_new-byline.png?resize=1360%2C166&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n