This a great piece of work. Very comprehensive. I have only a couple of comments that I hope are constructive.
1. Authorship – I guess I am a little “old fashioned” here. I believe the test of authorship is that to qualify as an author you must be able to explain all facets of the research behind the paper or abstract to an informed audience. Even the technically difficult area of statistical analysis needs to be understood at a meta level by all authors. What do others think?
2. I think it might be useful to include something on potential areas of conflict and how they are resolved eg ordering of authors, changes in authorship, insufficient access to primary data, conflicts in analysis and interpretations, dealing with queries from conference or journal reviewers – but perhaps that is the next paper?
Thank you for providing this preprint document. I found it very useful to read. I think it would be hugely helpful if congresses requested details such as funding information, trial registration, etc in boxes separate from the abstract text proper (some of course, already do): too often we try to shoehorn everything into the abstract and end up with rather bulleted/stilted text. I also like the suggestion about differentiating between author and non-author presenters.
This is a great article. It will help me manage my pub teams better having this in a peer-reviewed article. Then they will not think that they are just my rules (I agree with every point you make). Thank you so much for adding the sections on posting posters and presentations on Congress websites prior to the full publication being published in a journal. This has happened to us. The journal considered a presentation posted on a website to be prior publication and 2 years later we still have not been able to publish the full article so I can confirm this really is an issue. If there is a way to invite some Congress organizers to review it would help too. I really wish they would not call CME session proposals or workshop proposals"abstracts" because they really are not abstracts they are proposals. It causes massive amounts of confusion so I hope they review your definition and make changes. Thank you again for taking the time to put this all on paper.
Dear Kate et al,
Nice to see an article addressing issues outside of what is included in the ICMJE guidelines. One thought is that it would be good to see a suggestion for how to acknowledge medical writers on the poster and other docs. Would you suggest the same level of detail as for a manuscript? In my mind that should be the case but good to have that clarified.
You can also choose to receive updates via daily or weekly email digests. If you are following multiple preprints then we will send you no more than one email per day or week based on your preferences.
Note: You are now also subscribed to the subject areas of this preprint and will receive updates in the daily or weekly email digests if turned on. You can add specific subject areas through your profile settings.
Usage since published - updated daily