Here we cover three hot topics in publishing that are shaping the industry dialogue. We focus on BioGPT: a generative AI model that generates fluent descriptions for biomedical terms, why there is a call to reform the current scholarly publishing model, and using the patient voice in publishing.
As generative AI models like BioGPT and ChatGPT gain popularity in medical publishing, this community faces a crucial choice. Some raise concerns about potential drawbacks, while others see the promise of AI. In an article in the Clinical Trials Arena, William Newton discusses that BioGPT is tailored for biomedicine and excels in human-level responses after being trained on extensive research data. BioGPT uses deep learning, functioning as a “black box” technology. It handles tasks such as answering queries, data extraction, and generating biomedical text. Moreover, in Microsoft’s evaluation, it outperformed previous models in most tasks, even matching human performance on PubMedQA. Despite the above benefits, caution is advised due to limitations, including the risk of BioGPT generating inaccurate content and inheriting biases from medical research data, thereby potentially propagating misinformation.
There is a need to replace traditional journals with a more modern solution where articles are more accessible to interested readers. The EU Council has called for policies promoting non-profit, open access scholarly publishing. Ten key organisations in research and innovation supported this move. In an article in Royal Society Open Science, Professor Björn Brembs and his team discussed the urgency for change. They highlighted three crises: replicability, affordability, and functionality that perpetuates a dysfunctional journal system. Their solution involves replacing traditional journals with a modern, decentralised, open, and community-governed scholarly network grounded in open standards. It is noted that effective governance would establish open standards and prevent corporate dominance.
In a recent ISMMPP podcast, the importance of integrating the patient voice into publications was highlighted. Collaborating with patient advocates represents an innovative approach to enhance the accessibility of publications for patients. Given that patients are primary recipients of pharmaceutical products, their perspectives are crucial for improved outcomes. However, there are challenges to patient engagement, such as addressing legal compliance, patient compensation, and establishing standardised frameworks across various teams and organisations. In an article published in Health Expectations, current frameworks and strategies are reviewed, offering insights into best practices for promoting patient engagement. Researchers looking to partner with patient advocates in publications can benefit from tips such as defining alignment and purpose, forming cross-functional teams, seeking external perspectives, and actively involving patients throughout the entire publication process.
