This poster was created by a team from Cactus Life Sciences in collaboration with representatives from Astellas, Tokyo; Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim; and Amgen, Thousand Oaks. It was presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of ISMPP, May 1-3, 2017. This poster presents the results of an online survey that was conducted to determine what medical publication professionals from pharmaceutical, biotech, device companies (industry), and medical communication agencies (agency) consider as important measures of success of publication plans.

1. Metrics of success for medical publication plans:
results of a global survey
Kim Pepitonea
, Mieko Hamanab
, Daniel Portsmouthc
, Dikran Toroserd
, and Sandeep Kamate
a
Cactus Communications, Trevose, PA, USA; b
Astellas, Tokyo, Japan; c
Boehringer Ingelheim, Ingelheim, Germany; d
Amgen, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA; e
Cactus Communications, Mumbai, India
Presented at the 13th
Annual Meeting of ISMPP,
May 1-3, 2017, National Harbor, MD, USA
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Poster design, layout, and production support was provided by Dirk Eggermont
of Cactus Communications. This study was funded by Cactus Communications.
DISCLAIMER
The opinions expressed in this poster are of the individual authors and may not reflect those
of their employers or ISMPP.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
• The majority of publication professionals defined the success of their plans by conventional
measures, ie, number of publications, tier of journal, and adherence to timelines.
• The use of social media tools to track the reach of journal and congress publications has
been actively discussed at forums such as ISMPP. However, little information is available
on their real-world use by the medical publications community. Therefore, we assessed
the use of social media as a tool to measure success. Surprisingly, the use of social media
tools did not rank as high as might have been expected.
• The difference in length of time in the profession may reflect changes in industry, where
dedicated publication departments and functions are relatively new compared with the
functions in agencies.
• A limitation of our research may be the use of a survey to derive our data, as in general,
surveys provide descriptive qualitive rather than rigorous quantitive data.
• The robustness of our results is supported by the fact that the large majority of the
respondents (~90%) were actively practicing industry and agency professionals,
and therefore well informed on the current publication planning practices.
RESULTS
Survey response
• 365 responses were received, translating into
a calculated response rate of ~25%.
–– 33 (<0.1%; N=~29,000) from the LinkedIn
posts before direct email to ISMPP
members
–– 332 (25%; N=1320) after direct email,
with most presumably from ISMPP
members
–– The survey response mechanism did not
allow differentiation between respondents
from the LinkedIn groups and those from
the direct email.
• Of the 365 responses received, 93 respondents
left the survey after selecting company type,
leaving 272 (74%) responses (49% industry,
51% agency) available for analysis.
• The survey elicited broad global responses:
–– Industry respondents from 12 individual
countries
–– Agency respondents from 10 individual
countries
Respondent demographics
Industry respondents from
Publications or Medical Affairs
From Marketing0%
90%
Industry Department
Industry respondents in
companies with >5000 employees
Agency respondents in
companies with ≤100 employees44%
64%
Number of Employees
35-40% respondents in Medical
Director or Publication Manager roles
Industry & Agency respondents
in Medical Writer roles
20%
20%
40%
Industry & Agency respondents
in Senior Executive roles
Role in Company
Agency respondents had
>10 years of experience
Industry respondents had
>10 years of experience39%
65%
Publication Planning Experience
Belgium 3.01% (4)
China 3.76% (5)
Denmark 0.75% (1)
France 0.75% (1)
Germany 2.26% (3)
India 3.76% (5)
Japan 6.02% (8)
Spain 1.50% (2)
Switzerland 3.01% (4)
Uganda 0.75% (1)
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
5.26% (7)
United States
of America
69.17% (92)
69% USA
Industry
Australia 2.90% (4)
China 0.72% (1)
France 1.45% (2)
Germany 0.72% (1)
India 1.45% (2)
Netherlands 5.07% (7)
Poland 0.72% (1)
Switzerland 0.72% (1)
United Kingdom of
Great Britain and
Northern Ireland
26.81% (37)
United States
of America
59.42% (82)
59% USA
27% UK
Agency
1 Most important
Proportion of respondents
2 3 4 5 Least important
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Industry
Agency
Industry
Agency
Industry
Agency
Industry
Agency
Industry
Agency
Successful execution
of publication plan
within budget
Manuscripts published
in first-choice journal
despite impact
on timeline
Manuscripts published
according to
planned timelines
Manuscripts submitted
according to
planned timelines
No. of
planned vs actual
publications
Metrics of success of publication plans
• Nearly 80% respondents from both groups
reported that their companies measured the
success of publication plans, with a majority
doing so annually.
• Most important measures of success:
–– Number of planned vs actual publications
and manuscript submissions according to
planned timelines
• Least important measure of success:
–– Successful execution within budget
Other points of interest
• High-tier, high-impact factor journals were
considered more important than open access
journals indexed in major databases by
both industry (46% vs 31%) and agency
(69% vs 15%).
• 64% industry respondents thought a
compliance policy helps by tracking author
participation and identifying points of delay;
42% felt it facilitates comments reconciliation
through all drafts being available in a central
repository.
• 65% industry respondents said publication
of trials with negative or equivocal results
had no impact on the success of the plan.
Use of social media data
• Qualitative comments suggest a lack of
clarity on the application of social media
data as a metric to measure the success of
publication plans.
19% Industry
respondents and 30%
Agency respondents
analyze social media data
60% respondents
do NOT use
social media tools
to track the success
of publication plans
When used, social
media tools most
commonly tracked in
publication plans
Blogger
Forums
Twitter
WordPress
LinkedIn
ABSTRACT
Pepitone et al. Curr Med Res Opin. 2017;33(suppl 1):S15-16.
INTRODUCTION
• Medical publication plans are a mainstay of our profession, yet measures
of success are not clearly defined. Quantifying these metrics is particularly
important in the current environment of evolving practices, especially in
confirming the value of publication plans.
• This online survey was conducted to determine what medical publication
professionals from pharmaceutical, biotech, and device companies
(industry) and medical communication agencies (agency) consider as
important measures of success of publication plans. We report the results
of the responses considered most relevant to metrics of success.
Scan for
abstract
METHODS
• Anonymous online survey administered via SurveyMonkey between
October 11 and November 17, 2016. Responses were restricted to once
per device, and respondents could skip questions.
• Survey questions were specific to publication professionals in both
industry and agencies.
• The survey was posted on October 11, 2016, to 7 LinkedIn pages* serving
publication professionals (N=~29,000).
• The survey was then emailed directly to ISMPP members (N=1320) listed
in the membership directory on October 28, 2016, with a reminder on
November 9, 2016.
*ISMPP, AMWA, EMWA, Medical and Scientific Writers, Medical Writing and Medical Communications
Network, Professional Medical/Scientific Writer, and The Publication Plan
Scan for survey
questions