What practitioners rank first in a writer’s competence
Practitioners assess medical-writing competence through the quality of the communication and the judgement, collaboration and integrity behind it. Their priorities include clear scientific prose, accurate interpretation and appropriate presentation, alongside the ability to deliver work with other people.
The job-analysis ranking
A 2012 medical-writing job analysis used five domains: gathering, organising, interpreting, presenting and evaluating information, with ethics embedded in all five. The associated survey received 1,177 completed responses between 28 April and 8 July 2012. Respondents rated 68 tasks or knowledge, skills and abilities from 1 (no importance), through 2 (little importance), 3 (moderately important) and 4 (very important), to 5 (extremely important).
All mean scores exceeded the midpoint, with the lowest at 3.60; more than 93% of respondents considered the analysis a complete or adequate account of critical medical-writing tasks. The ranked tasks and mean scores are shown with their standard errors (SE).
| Domain | Task or knowledge, skill or ability | Mean | SE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Presenting | Communicate scientific content appropriately | 4.65 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Present the message logically and coherently | 4.63 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Maintain confidentiality of information | 4.62 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Apply proper mechanics: Apply proper word usage (general and medical), correct nomenclature, and nondiscriminatory language | 4.56 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Apply proper mechanics: Construct effective sentences | 4.56 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Develop clear, concise prose | 4.55 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Retain the intended meaning of source materials or original documents | 4.52 | 0.02 |
| Evaluating | Conduct critical review of a draft: Assess quality of writing | 4.50 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Apply proper mechanics: Construct effective paragraphs | 4.49 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Communicate statistical content appropriately | 4.49 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Apply proper mechanics: Apply rules of grammar, spelling, and punctuation | 4.48 | 0.02 |
| Evaluating | Identify inconsistencies in data or other content presented | 4.47 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Write document to adhere to standardized formats, guidelines, instructions, and ethical standards | 4.40 | 0.02 |
| Interpreting | Comprehend relevant medical and scientific content: Understand terminology | 4.40 | 0.02 |
| Evaluating | Evaluate collected information with regard to: Content | 4.40 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Apply proper mechanics: Apply techniques for cohesion between paragraphs and sections | 4.39 | 0.02 |
| Gathering | Determine purpose of document | 4.36 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Respond to reviewers’ comments: Interpret feedback from reviewers | 4.36 | 0.02 |
| Interpreting | Respond to reviewers’ comments: Determine appropriate responses | 4.34 | 0.02 |
| Organizing | Structure content to communicate message | 4.33 | 0.02 |
| Interpreting | Synthesize and integrate information | 4.32 | 0.02 |
| Interpreting | Derive key message(s) | 4.31 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Build logical and science-based arguments | 4.31 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Perform fact or data check | 4.31 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet. Identify relevant writing guidelines, instructions, and ethical standards | 4.28 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Conduct critical review of a draft: Provide options for solutions | 4.27 | 0.02 |
| Interpreting | Comprehend relevant medical and scientific content: Understand study design | 4.27 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify context for document | 4.25 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Evaluate collected information with regard to: Appropriateness | 4.24 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Conduct critical review of a draft: Evaluate the representation and description of data | 4.24 | 0.02 |
| Presenting | Tailor prose to the audience | 4.23 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Identify and prioritize key elements of content | 4.23 | 0.02 |
| Evaluating | Conduct critical review of a draft: Craft appropriate queries | 4.22 | 0.03 |
| Presenting | Structure an abstract | 4.20 | 0.03 |
| Presenting | Apply principles of proofreading | 4.18 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Comprehend relevant medical and scientific content: Understand concepts | 4.17 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Interpret clinical and numerical data | 4.17 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Determine structure of tables and figures to best communicate data | 4.15 | 0.03 |
| Presenting | Apply principles of visual presentation of data | 4.10 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Evaluate for completeness, fair balance, and absence of bias | 4.09 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify target audience: Assess needs | 4.08 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Evaluate collected information with regard to: Audience | 4.08 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Revise or repurpose existing content | 4.06 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Conduct critical review of a draft: Recognize ethical considerations with respect to self and others | 4.05 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Comprehend review processes | 4.04 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Design project work plan: Recognize roles, responsibilities, and processes | 4.04 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Determine inferences, implications, or clinical relevance | 4.04 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Design project work plan: Develop timeline | 4.03 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Determine organization of document | 4.03 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Apply templates and guidelines to documents | 4.02 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Design project work plan: Determine deliverables | 4.01 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet: Conduct a literature search | 4.00 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Determine process for tracking changes and version control | 3.99 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Track progress and status of project | 3.98 | 0.03 |
| Interpreting | Comprehend relevant medical and scientific content: Understand statistical concepts | 3.98 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet: Identify relevant document models and templates | 3.96 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Implement best approach to resolve issues | 3.94 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Determine which reference to cite in document | 3.93 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet: Elicit information from collaborators and stakeholders | 3.93 | 0.03 |
| Evaluating | Determine appropriate level(s) of editing | 3.92 | 0.03 |
| Presenting | Apply basic principles of design and layout | 3.91 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify target audience: Identify knowledge gaps | 3.87 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet: Identify relevant sources | 3.85 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Select appropriate output type | 3.83 | 0.04 |
| Organizing | Develop an outline | 3.78 | 0.03 |
| Gathering | Identify appropriate outlet: Identify necessary forms and supporting materials | 3.74 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Recognize and apply appropriate software and technology to use in developing the document | 3.67 | 0.03 |
| Organizing | Comprehend processes of developing and disseminating documents | 3.60 | 0.04 |
Scientific communication and delivery
Good scientific communication is accurate, clear, concise and readable, suits its objectives and audience, flows logically and engages readers. Interpreting, evaluating and contextualising data, together with competent grammar and spelling, form the writing core. Additional attributes include the following.
- Manage time well, work accurately at speed, handle multiple projects, manage workload and reprioritise as circumstances change.
- Pay close attention to detail.
- Show commercial awareness.
- Work as part of a team.
- Communicate and present effectively by email, telephone and face to face.
- Show enthusiasm for learning, effort and high standards.
Problem-solving is another valued attribute.
For publication writers, the core combines command of research principles and methods, understanding of authors’ intentions and readers’ needs, knowledge of journal requirements, precise and concise prose, logical information flow and effective visual representation of data. Driving projects, collaborating with authors and other contributors, and lifelong learning through continuing education and professional development also belong to that competence, across research topics and publication types.
A pharmaceutical-industry perspective gives two central requirements for success.
- Understand and use the language of science, and write documents knowing what to include, how to include it and where it belongs to meet audience needs.
- Manage a challenging project team whose members do not report to the writer, using effective interpersonal skills.
By 2019, that perspective also emphasised communication-plan strategy, the breadth of medical communication, structured-authoring concepts and data-visualisation principles, while holding that the core competencies remained unchanged as new delivery channels created additional skill needs. Writers need not be experts in every subject, technology or tool.
Integrity and curiosity
Integrity can be ranked above other attributes: intellectual honesty includes doing the necessary research rather than pretending to know a subject. One experienced medical editor declined assignments when subject knowledge was insufficient for good work. Adaptability also matters, while allowing resistance when the proposed direction seems wrong.
Curiosity can sustain engagement through adversity: an editor recovering from a stroke continued to learn and remain interested even when limited to watching television. A love of language also helped the editor through difficult assignments and late deadlines.