Dear Authors,
Thank you for joining your efforts to prepare this awaited guidance. Please find below some suggestions I have gathered from the team I am working in:
Principles section
1st bullet point – Authors listing not influenced by input on conference abstracts and presentations? (see Authors 1.1.1, Contributors 1.2.1.)
3rd bullet point and bullet points 3 & 4 from the Recommendation for conference organizers – should this not be applicable for abstracts too?
The last 2 bullet points from the Recommendation for conference organizers section could be grouped with the first one as they refer to contributors and authors.
Note on terminology section
Consider adding that in publication clauses of contracts, there is a note on recommending that the investigators are following these guidelines when going to conferences.
Consider referring to the scientific (or programme) committee as ´peer-review committee´
1.0 Authorship.
1.1.1. Consider adding that ‘author listing should be agreed by all contributors’. Also, for abstract, if impractical to have all authors drafting/critically revising – is it then sufficient to only ‘do the research and willing to take responsibility’ to be author? Of note, consider indicating that they should have at least the opportunity to review the abstract.
1.1.2. By whom should authorship criteria be established and agreed at the start of the research? Principal investigator, Sponsor or both? Also, ´author listings should be finalized before abstracts and presentations are developed´ - can this be before the availability of the results?
1.1.3. It is mentioned that authors have access to the data to develop and discuss the planned presentation – it might be useful to add ´abstract´ as well
1.1.4. ´If individuals are authors on abstracts OR presentations´ – consider replacing OR with AND, as ideally the authorship should remain the same
1.1.5. Consider adding that ‘order of authors should be agreed by all authors’
1.1.6. It is mentioned that authors might not be able to review the material within the deadline – it might be useful considering to add ´to review and/or approve´
1.2 Contributors / study groups
1.2.1. What does that mean: named authors should be limited to those who did actively work on the abstract? Drafting/critically revising? If yes, then this is in contradiction with the proposal in 1.1.1. not to expect all authors to actively work on abstract? Also, for the same point, it is not very clear what ´and space allowed on the submission site´ refers to – is this a suggestion for congresses to allow space for authorship/study group?
1.2.3. If abstracts include a list of all contributors, including non-authors, should permission for such acknowledgment be sought in writing before submission?
2.0 Conference abstracts
2.1.4. ´presenting findings after full publication should be avoided´ - consider adding rationale (for example, to avoid perception of promotion)
2.2.1. ´presentations of the same findings to the same audience should be avoided´ - consider adding rationale (for example, to avoid perception of promotion)
2.3. 3rd bullet point - ´presentation at multiple meetings might delay the full publication´ - consider adding ´delay and/or potentially jeopardize´
2.3. 4th bullet point - ´Copyright in previous abstracts and presentations must be respected´ - consider adding ´and potentially previous manuscript(s)´
3.0 Conference presentations
3.1.1. Should any financial support towards the presenting author (travel/accommodation) be reported on top of ‘funding source for research’ and ‘assistance with the presentation’?
Consider adding ´potential´ to the ´authors conflicts of interest´. Also, do you have any recommendation for presentations, e.g. inclusion at the start/end of the presentation, to be said orally or 'just' shown?
3.1.6. Would it be useful to add a note on the fact that the abstract is the "referenceable" material, not the poster/presentation?
3.1.8. This kind of support should be transparently disclosed in the poster/presentation.
Sections 3.1.9 and 3.1.10 could be merged as they refer to the same topic
3.2.2. Usually, it is more the abstract used as "citable" material no?
3.2.3. Consider removing the ´(e.g. principal investigator)´ as a lead author should be the one driving the development of the publication, thus the principal investigator is not necessarily the lead author. Additionally, the presenter should be agreed before the abstract is submitted in case of oral presentations as well; this should be included as a general aspect.
3.3.1. Same comment on lead author versus principal investigator as above.
3.3.4. Agreement from the authors for public availability should be obtained.
We hope that you will find some of our suggestions useful and we look forward to read the final version of the GP-CAP guidance.
With best regards,
Iudit Filip on behalf of the XPE Publications Coordinators team
