William T. Gattrell

Objective In biomedical and health sciences, many articles are published open access (OA). Rates of OA publications continue to grow, including for research carried out by pharmaceutical companies. To help drive more openness in the pharmaceutical industry, we aimed to compare the OA publication rates of pharmaceutical companies with those of academic institutions. Methods We assessed OA publication rates from the 40 largest pharmaceutical companies by earnings and 40 comparator academic institutions that publish the largest number of medical research articles in their geographical region. Using the Lens, we built a live public dashboard that presents the OA publication rates for articles with authors affiliated to the pharmaceutical companies and comparator academic institutions of interest, detailed by OA model and licence, and by medical therapy area. We performed further analysis on data downloaded from the dashboard. Results In our primary analysis of articles 12–24 months since publication date, 76.6% of pharmaceutical company (pharma) and 69.5% of academic institution (academia) publications were OA. The most common OA models were gold (pharma, 37%; academia, 41%) and hybrid (pharma, 22%; academia, 11%). Oncology had lower rates of OA publications than other therapy areas. Growth in the OA publication rate was generally more rapid for pharmaceutical companies than for academic institutions, regardless of field. Conclusions The OA publication rate was higher for pharmaceutical companies than for academic institutions and continues to increase. With the pharmaceutical industry focused on encouraging authors to publish OA and increasingly aware of the different types of OA licences, we expect and welcome further changes. Our new report provides data on pharmaceutical company and academic institution publications that are updated every 2 weeks. We encourage others to use this open resource and report their results. What is already known on this topic Open access (OA) publication rates for pharmaceutical companies have been steadily growing. However, previous methods for analysing pharmaceutical company OA publication rates have not been conducive to automation and have not facilitated easy comparison between pharmaceutical companies and other research-intensive environments, such as academic institutions. What this study adds We built an online dashboard that presents continually and automatically updated OA publication rates for articles with authors affiliated to several large pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions. We found that the OA publication rate was higher for pharmaceutical companies than for academic institutions and that growth in OA publications was generally more rapid for pharmaceutical companies than for academic institutions. How this study might affect research, practice or policy Our dashboard allows ongoing monitoring, and we encourage the use of this free tool to capture evolving OA publishing behaviours and the disclosure of these results to help drive greater adoption of OA publishing practices. Strengths and limitations of this study As expected with large-scale bibliometrics sampling, there are various points at which error and/or information loss may have entered this analysis, for example, during the parsing of author affiliations or categorisation of topics and article types. The comparator set (a globally representative group of research-intensive academic institutions) may not represent academic institutions in general because it includes only the largest academic institutions (in terms of publication counts) from each global region. There is overlap between the pharmaceutical company and academic institution analysis sets because first, pharmaceutical company publications often include academic authors, and second, academic institution publications may include pharmaceutical company authors. Hence, some individual publications may have been included in both analysis sets. The analysis does not account for studies that are led by authors at academic institutions but funded by pharmaceutical companies. These investigator-sponsored studies typically do not have pharmaceutical company authors, and pharmaceutical companies have no influence over decisions relating to publications resulting from these studies, including target journal, OA status and license type. Plain Language Summary Biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies develop and deliver most of the world’s new medicines. To ensure important information about these medicines is shared transparently with audiences across the world, more and more often, pharmaceutical companies are choosing to publish their research open access. Open access publishing allows anyone to read and, in some cases, reuse the contents of research publications for free. In medical journals, an increasing proportion of articles are published open access every year. However, at the moment, we don’t understand how the open access publication rates of medical publications from pharmaceutical companies compare with those of medical publications from academic institutions. Understanding this could help the scientific community assess how open access publication practices are changing over time. We made an online platform that provides a free, live report of the open access publication rates for pharmaceutical companies and academic institutions. We found that 77% of pharmaceutical company research publications and 70% of academic institution research publications were published open access. Open access publication rates increased each year for both pharmaceutical company and academic institution research publications, but the rates were increasing faster for pharmaceutical companies. Our results are similar to those from other studies of open access publication rates. We encourage users to explore our free online live report and share their results publicly. The live report can be accessed using the following link: https://www.lens.org/lens/report/view/Open-access-dashboard/14572/page/14573.

Background: When research evidence is limited, inconsistent, or absent, healthcare decisions and policies need to be based on consensus amongst interested stakeholders. In these processes, the knowledge, experience, and expertise of health professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public are systematically collected and synthesised to reach agreed clinical recommendations and/or priorities. However, despite the influence of consensus exercises, the methods used to achieve agreement are often poorly reported. The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) guideline was developed to help report any consensus methods used in biomedical research, regardless of the health field, techniques used, or application. This explanatory document facilitates the use of the ACCORD checklist.Methods and findings: This paper was built collaboratively based on classic and contemporary literature on consensus methods and publications reporting their use. For each ACCORD checklist item, this explanation and elaboration document unpacks the pieces of information that should be reported and provides a rationale on why it is essential to describe them in detail. Furthermore, this document offers a glossary of terms used in consensus exercises to clarify the meaning of common terms used across consensus methods, to promote uniformity, and to support understanding for consumers who read consensus statements, position statements, or clinical practice guidelines. The items are followed by examples of reporting items from the ACCORD guideline, in text, tables and figures.Conclusions: The ACCORD materials – including the reporting guideline and this explanation and elaboration document – can be used by anyone reporting a consensus exercise used in the context of health research. As a reporting guideline, ACCORD helps researchers to be transparent about the materials, resources (both human and financial), and procedures used in their investigations so readers can judge the trustworthiness and applicability of their results/recommendations.

Background: In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited, or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions, and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. Our aim was to develop the first reporting guideline dedicated to and applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research regardless of the objective of the consensus process, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). Methods and findings: We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalize the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. A Delphi panel (n = 72) was recruited with representation from 6 continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy, and patient perspectives. The 3 rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54, and 51 panelists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n = 1), introduction (n = 3), methods (n = 21), results (n = 5), discussion (n = 2), and other information (n = 3). Conclusions: The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigor of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

Background: In biomedical research, it is often desirable to seek consensus among individuals who have differing perspectives and experience. This is important when evidence is emerging, inconsistent, limited or absent. Even when research evidence is abundant, clinical recommendations, policy decisions and priority-setting may still require agreement from multiple, sometimes ideologically opposed parties. Despite their prominence and influence on key decisions, consensus methods are often poorly reported. We aimed to develop the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus methods used in biomedical research, called ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document). Methods: We followed methodology recommended by the EQUATOR Network for the development of reporting guidelines: a systematic review was followed by a Delphi process and meetings to finalise the ACCORD checklist. The preliminary checklist was drawn from the systematic review of existing literature on the quality of reporting of consensus methods and suggestions from the Steering Committee. Results: A Delphi panel (n=72) was recruited with representation from six continents and a broad range of experience, including clinical, research, policy and patient perspectives. The three rounds of the Delphi process were completed by 58, 54 and 51 panellists. The preliminary checklist of 56 items was refined to a final checklist of 35 items relating to the article title (n=1), introduction (n=3), methods (n=21), results (n=5), discussion (n=2) and other information (n=3). Conclusions: The ACCORD checklist is the first reporting guideline applicable to all consensus-based studies. It will support authors in writing accurate, detailed manuscripts, thereby improving the completeness and transparency of reporting and providing readers with clarity regarding the methods used to reach agreement. Furthermore, the checklist will make the rigour of the consensus methods used to guide the recommendations clear for readers. Reporting consensus studies with greater clarity and transparency may enhance trust in the recommendations made by consensus panels.

Background: Structured, systematic methods to formulate consensus recommendations, such as the Delphi process or nominal group technique, among others, provide the opportunity to harness the knowledge of experts to support clinical decision making in areas of uncertainty. They are widely used in biomedical research, in particular where disease characteristics or resource limitations mean that high-quality evidence generation is difficult. However, poor reporting of methods used to reach a consensus – for example, not clearly explaining the definition of consensus, or not stating how consensus group panellists were selected – can potentially undermine confidence in this type of research and hinder reproducibility. Our objective is therefore to systematically develop a reporting guideline to help the biomedical research and clinical practice community describe the methods or techniques used to reach consensus in a complete, transparent, and consistent manner. Methods: The ACCORD (ACcurate COnsensus Reporting Document) project will take place in five stages and follow the EQUATOR Network guidance for the development of reporting guidelines. In Stage 1, a multidisciplinary Steering Committee has been established to lead and coordinate the guideline development process. In Stage 2, a systematic literature review will identify evidence on the quality of the reporting of consensus methodology, to obtain potential items for a reporting checklist. In Stage 3, Delphi methodology will be used to reach consensus regarding the checklist items, first among the Steering Committee, and then among a broader Delphi panel comprising participants with a range of expertise, including patient representatives. In Stage 4, the reporting guideline will be finalised in a consensus meeting, along with the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document. In Stage 5, we plan to publish the reporting guideline and E&E document in open-access journals, supported by presentations at appropriate events. Dissemination of the reporting guideline, including a website linked to social media channels, is crucial for the document to be implemented in practice. Discussion: The ACCORD reporting guideline will provide a set of minimum items that should be reported about methods used to achieve consensus, including approaches ranging from simple unstructured opinion gatherings to highly structured processes.

Background Many in-person congresses have shifted to a virtual format owing to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We assessed carbon emissions savings associated with virtual attendance at international medical congresses for a mid-sized pharmaceutical company, to identify which aspects are driving the carbon cost. Methods We assessed carbon emissions that were the responsibility of company attendees (including their guests) for the most attended congresses by employees (American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO], European Neuroendocrine Tumor Society [ENETS], European Society for Medical Oncology [ESMO], World Congress for NeuroRehabilitation [WCNR]). For in-person estimates, we considered travel, accommodation and congress attendance; for online estimates, we considered office and internet-related energy use. Emissions were defined using recognised data sources. Results For 1723 anticipated in-person attendees, calculated total carbon emissions were 3,262,574 kgCO_2e (mean per in-person company attendee, 1894 kgCO_2e: ASCO, 4172; ESMO, 1479; WCNR, 1153; ENETS, 1009). For context, the average UK resident’s annual carbon footprint is 5600 kgCO_2e. Travel accounted for 91–96% of total emissions, mainly through long distance and business-class air travel. Calculated total carbon emissions associated with 1839 virtual attendees were 19,095 kgCO_2e (mean per virtual company attendee, 10.4 kgCO_2e; equivalent to approximately 0.3–1.1% of in-person attendance emissions across all four congresses assessed). Conclusion Carbon emissions associated with virtual attendance were two orders of magnitude lower than for in-person attendance, and therefore the benefits of in-person attendance at medical congresses must be balanced against the carbon cost. Due diligence around who should attend and how they should travel to face-to-face meetings, and consideration of hybrid and domestic satellite options could be part of a balanced solution to reducing carbon emissions.

Plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications are a means of sharing research with a broad range of audiences and may improve the transparency, accountability, accessibility, discoverability, and inclusivity of medical research. There is currently an ongoing, industry-wide effort to establish consensus on plain language summaries, and initiatives are already in place that provide detailed guidance on plain language best practice, co-creation methods, patient-focused content, graphic and digital considerations, and publisher-specific guidelines. However, there remains a need for a foundational set of recommendations that complement existing initiatives to outline the minimum steps needed to develop discoverable, plain language summaries that are trustworthy, credible, and of high quality. Here, we present the Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications. These recommendations were initially developed by the Open Pharma Accessibility workstream and were extensively reviewed and refined during an expert roundtable and a focused, public consultation. Open Pharma is a multi-sponsor collaboration of pharmaceutical companies, non-pharmaceutical funders, publishers, patients, academics, regulators, editors, and societies seeking to identify and drive positive changes in the publishing of pharmaceutical company-funded research. We recommend that plain language summaries should be in the style of an abstract, free of technical jargon, unbiased, non-promotional, peer reviewed, and easily accessed. Plain language summaries should also meet the technical requirements to be indexed in directories such as PubMed. Ultimately, these recommendations are intended to be a concise outline of a minimum standard that provides top-line guidance on plain language summaries for authors, medical writers, publishers, and research funders. Articles published in peer-reviewed medical journals are written using technical language. Plain language summaries are short summaries of these articles, written in everyday language that is easy to understand by anyone interested in medical research. This can include patients, patient advocates, caregivers, healthcare professionals, and policymakers. Sharing research through plain language summaries makes medical information more accessible and inclusive. However, few medical research articles include plain language summaries. The pharmaceutical industry has an opportunity to improve everyone’s understanding of medical research by regularly developing plain language summaries of their articles. Plain language summaries can come in many different formats such as infographics and videos. However, text-only summaries are the easiest to find on internet search engines and research websites such as PubMed. Currently, there is limited guidance available to help researchers and medical journal publishers develop plain language summaries for their articles. In this article, ‘Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications’, we suggest a set of simple rules to help authors make and share text-only plain language summaries that we believe are possible for all articles reporting medical research. Once these have been met, we encourage researchers to consider making and sharing infographics and video summaries as well, to help people to understand their research even more.