Just enter your email
Hi - nice paper, and thanks for including GPCAP.
I have a few comments if you don't mind.
page 5 line 14: consider adding the recently launched MedRxiv preprint server
page 6 line 22: "Sunshine act" is a nickname. Consider referencing section 6002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (2010)
page 9 lines 4–5: I wonder if the phrase "optimise outcomes" may be misunderstood to mean optimising outcomes of the trial, rather than optimising the publication process?
page 9 line 9: I think you may have a leftover "result"... "...data that are not clearly positive result and should not conflate..."
Page 10 line 16: I had a problem with this link. I think you may have to be logged in as an ISMPP member for it to work correctly
Page 10 line 22–page 11 line 4: I think it's worth stressing that any intervention has to happen early in the process, to allow an author to participate fully, rather than as an afterthought.
Page 12 lines 3–7: we ran in to this a bit with our peer review comments on GPCAP. We recommend 10 authors as a manageable number of contributors in line with GPP3. However, we wouldn't assume 10 is an absolute maximum or use it to exclude appropriately qualified contributors. Both GPP3 and GPCAP state that people who qualify for authorship should be authors – we just practically recognize that reconciling more than 10 sets of directions can be challenging... as you note.
Page 13 lines 1–3: perhaps recommend that oral comments are minuted back to the author, for audit purposes?
Page 13 line 13: If an author wants to come off the byline due to an impasse, consider whether they should be encouraged to accept an acknowledgement if they have already made a substantial contribution. Should they be allowed to refuse an acknowledgement? Tricky one
Page 15, line 6: if an author change is made during the peer review process, consider stressing that is should only happen with the agreement of all existing authors?
Page 16 lines 11–13: GPP3 discourages payment for authorship, i.e. honoraria. It doesn't rule out payment of fair market value for time spent e.g. writing or performing statistical analyses. If an HCP can invoice for hours spent working on a manuscript (e.g. time they would otherwise have been earning money as a healthcare professional) then that is acceptable.
Page 17 line 19: consider "discoverability" rather than "visibility"?
Thanks – I'm looking forward to reading the final version.
COI: I work for a company that provides medical communication services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients. I am a member of ISMPP, hold the CMPP certification and am an author of GPCAP.