- \n
- Traditional metrics like impact factor still influence journal selection and engagement, despite their limitations in assessing research quality.<\/li>\n
- Enhanced publication content, including graphical abstracts and plain language summaries, improves healthcare professional engagement.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/AdobeStock_917793779.jpeg?resize=1024%2C643&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nIn an article for The MAP newsletter<\/a>, Alexa Holland, Hamish McDougall, Radhika Bhatia, and Sarah J Clements highlight the importance of adopting novel metrics and enhanced publication content (EPC) to improve healthcare professional (HCP) engagement with scientific publications.<\/p>\n
Re-evaluating journal metrics<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, traditional metrics like impact factor continue to dominate journal selection and readership decisions, despite their well-documented limitations<\/a>. A survey<\/a> conducted by Clements and colleagues, presented at the 2024 European Meeting<\/a> of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals<\/a>, revealed that 57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish. However, such metrics do not always reflect the true value or reach of research.<\/p>\n
\n
57.9% of HCPs still rely on impact factor when selecting articles to read or choosing where to publish.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
To move away from this outdated method of research assessment, publication professionals must advocate for a shift towards more diverse and transparent metrics, as outlined by the Declaration on Research Assessment<\/a>. Additionally, efforts should focus on encouraging HCPs to engage with a more varied pool of publications, select appropriate target journals, and promote open access.<\/p>\n
The EPC effect: more engagement, more impact<\/strong><\/p>\n
Elsewhere, the survey identified that graphical abstracts, plain language summaries, video summaries, and other forms of EPC are powerful tools for boosting engagement. 38.8% of HCPs are more likely to read publications with EPC, and research<\/a> has also shown that articles featuring EPC tend to receive higher Altmetric<\/a> scores and experience increased social media engagement than those without.<\/p>\n
Despite the benefits, barriers such as development time, strict journal guidelines, and the fact that not all journals offer EPC options continue to hinder their broader implementation.<\/p>\n
To enhance EPC impact and adoption, the authors recommend:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Educating HCPs on the importance of EPC and how to create it<\/li>\n
- Encouraging journals that have yet to implement EPC to adopt it<\/li>\n
- Advocating for standardised inclusion of EPC across journals<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
The authors identified future areas for exploration, including how EPC can influence clinical decision-making and patient education. By prioritising a more rigorous research evaluation process and promoting opportunities to implement EPC, the medical publishing industry can better support knowledge dissemination, ultimately improving patient outcomes.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Andrea-Luengas-Martinez_new-byline_2.png?resize=1024%2C124&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n