Choosing and sequencing venues for a publication plan
A publication plan coordinates journal and congress choices with the audience, the data and the intended release dates.
Audience and subject fit
Previous publications and presentations should be tracked to avoid duplication and align new data with suitable congress opportunities, such as ASCO for oncology or ASH for haematology.
A potentially high-impact study may suit a leading international meeting in its therapeutic area, while regional or national meetings may suit studies of medium or lower impact. Pharmacology, pharmacokinetic and health-economic findings may fit specialist meetings, including virtual meetings. Experience in a disease area helps identify its key congresses, which can be prioritised each year.
Diagnostic data illustrate how subject matter affects journal prospects: laboratory technology and clinical chemistry often sit behind treatment choices and patient outcomes rather than attracting headlines themselves. In the 2012 Journal Citation Reports category for medical laboratory technology, 27 of 32 journals had impact factors below 3, illustrating the field’s specialisation. Companion diagnostics linked to an intervention and patient outcomes can attract attention from higher-profile journals.
Congress comparison
A meeting comparison can include the following factors.
- Meeting date and abstract deadline, which drive the timeline.
- Location.
- General or specialist scope, the specialty, and whether the meeting covers preclinical work, clinical work or both.
- Organiser and secretariat contact details.
- Proceedings and any journal publishing the abstracts.
- Number of attendees.
- Meeting frequency.
Published attendance information may offer limited help in assessing whether congress audiences differ. An August 2015 search covering the five largest congresses in each of eight disease areas found published attendance reports for 22 of 40 congresses. Oncology supplied five reports, cardiology and rheumatology three each, and neurology two; these areas’ reports disclosed an average of four to six of the nine information categories examined. Disclosure varied with size, region and disease area, with the most transparent reports coming from meetings of at least 15,000 delegates, US meetings and oncology meetings.
Publication dates and release sequence
The manuscript-development timeline should be prepared, shared and updated from the point when statistical analysis is available, identifying the inputs needed for writing and each intended publication date. Content and timelines should align when a congress presentation and journal article disclose the same data. Timing estimates should include manuscript development, the interval from submission to publication, and author approvals, particularly with a large author group. A high-tier journal needs a fast peer-review process if publication must meet a particular date.
Open discussion with the editor should cover the development programme, interest in interim results and the treatment of articles from concurrent studies. Discussion should also cover whether an editorial will accompany the main article.
The congress abstract should be submitted and accepted before manuscript publication, and the congress should precede the journal article. Most congresses ask about previous disclosure; organisers can also be asked whether they would like to present the results first. For rare publications of very high clinical impact, simultaneous congress presentation and full-manuscript publication require coordination among sponsor, authors, congress organisers and journal editor, with strict observance of embargo rules.
Post hoc analyses
A 2013 account anticipated that greater trial-data transparency would lead journals to reassess acceptance policies for legitimate post hoc subgroup analyses, potentially including expectations for expert involvement and steering committees. It described journals’ preference for primary trial reports with prospectively defined assessment criteria and the possibility that positive findings in subgroups not prespecified in the original trial would be viewed less favourably because of suspected post-trial hypotheses.