THANK YOU FOR JOINING

ISMPP U TODAY

The program will begin promptly at 11:00 eastern

December 11, 2013

ISMPP ANNOUNCEMENTS

• Mark your calendars! The 2014 European Meeting of ISMPP is on 21-23

January 2014, ETC Venues, 200 Aldersgate, St Paul's, London; registration is

now open

• Abstracts for the 10th Annual Meeting of ISMPP (April 7 – 9, 2014) are now

being accepted (abstracts@ismpp.org); deadline for submission is 5:00 PM

EST, Friday, January 10, 2014

• Applications are now being accepted for the March 2014 ISMPP Certified

Medical Publication Professional™ (CMPP) exam

• For new members only, join ISMPP between December 11, 2013 and

January 10, 2014 and receive 10% off your first year’s membership dues

when you use the voucher code: MBRDRV13.

• This program qualifies for 1 credit towards recertification

3

CHALLENGING CASES IN PUBLICATION

PLANNING

FOCUS ON DIGITAL INNOVATIONS

IN MEDICAL COMMUNICATIONS

December 11, 2013

AGENDA

• Introductions

• Objectives

• Case 1: Post-Meeting Availability of Content

• Q&A

• Case 2: Video Abstracts of Peer-Reviewed Publications

• Q&A

5

INTRODUCTIONS

• Faculty: Cynthia Bossie is a director in the CNS Medical Affairs group at

Janssen Scientific Affairs located in Titusville NJ. Her primary

responsibilities include leading research and publication programs with a

significant focus in the field of psychiatry. She has coauthored over 50

peer-reviewed manuscripts. She serves on the company’s charitable

contributions committee. Prior to joining Janssen, she served as a

consultant to clinical and scientific communications companies, a

research associate at the Waksman Institute of Microbiology, and a

chemist at Colgate Palmolive. She received her BS in Biology and

Chemistry with honors from the College of NJ, and her PhD in

Pharmacology from the University of Medicine and Dentistry of

NJ/Rutgers University.

6

INTRODUCTIONS

• Faculty: Jeff Frimpter is a Director with the Evidence-Based Medicine

team at Sanofi. He has focused on evidence translation initiatives,

including scientific publishing, across several therapeutic areas over the

past 10 years. Jeff has experience with medical publishing and CME

providers, having studied at Case Western Reserve University and is

completing his Masters of Public Health in Epidemiology and Health

Policy at the Rutgers School of Public Health.

7

INTRODUCTIONS

• Faculty: Jennifer Kern Sliwa is an employee of Janssen Scientific Affairs

LLC, as Director of CNS Medical Information. She has worked in the

pharmaceutical industry since 1997 as a Medical Science Liaison,

Scientific Intelligence Analyst, and various Medical Information roles. She

has been involved with the post-hoc analyses and publications team in

Medical Affairs for the past 4 years, and has co-authored numerous

publications. Jennifer attended the University of the Sciences in

Philadelphia (BS, PharmD), and has licenses/certifications in pharmacy

and psychiatric pharmacy.

8

INTRODUCTIONS

• Faculty: Tory Cenaj has led cross functional teams in publishing, medical

communications, digital communications and bio-pharmaceutical

environments. Her approach to integrated cross channel solutions and

problem-solving is to explore the technological frontier and current trends

for prospective implementation. She enjoys challenging teams and

developing a shared vision when asked to innovate in the spheres of

communications programming and publication planning directing ideation,

strategy and execution.

• Tory is a graduate of Smith College and has a Mini-MBA Certificate in

Social Media Marketing from Rutgers. She is a CMPP and serves on the

ISMPP U committee and is currently consulting at Brand Aid Digital.

9

DISCLOSURES

• Information presented reflects the personal knowledge and

opinion of the presenters and does not represent the position of

their current or past employers or the position of ISMPP

10

TODAY’S OBJECTIVES

• At the conclusion of this educational session, attendees should be able to:

– Be familiar with how the reach of scientific information can be

extended

– Understand the pre-planning, resource and logistical needs for

incorporating enhanced publication technology into a traditional

scientific publication piece

– Be aware of the potential challenges in incorporating digital

technologies in scientific publications

11

COMMUNICATION INNOVATIONS

Post-Meeting Availability of Content:

The Faculty of 1000 Posters Pilot Project

Jeff Frimpter

Director, Evidence-Based Medicine

Sanofi US jeffrey.frimpter@sanofi.com

DISCLAIMER AND DISCLOSURE

• The views expressed herein are those of the presenter and not

necessarily those of Sanofi US

• The presenter has never received anything from Faculty of 1000,

related to this work or otherwise. Any opinions are his own,

unsolicited and uncompensated

• The presenter does not have any conflicts of interest related to

this presentation

13

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

My organization has provided complementary or supplementary

content to an abstract or poster presentation (such as handouts, QR

code, or otherwise) at a scientific congress:

A. YES

B. NO, tried and failed

C. NO, have not tried

14

PEOPLE ACCESS INFORMATION

AT THEIR CONVENIENCE

Posters were viewed more often after the meeting...

…but only by those who were present to scan the QR codes.

422 623

Sanofi US Data on File. 15

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Have you placed QR codes on your congress poster(s) and was this

worthwhile in your opinion?

A. YES, and worth doing

B. YES, but not worth doing

C. YES, but I am neutral on their usefulness

D. YES, but I did not have metrics to understand their usefulness

E. NO, but I would like to use them

F. NO, and I do not plan to use them

16

“Give me a minute to look at this.”

PEOPLE ACCESS INFORMATION

AT THEIR CONVENIENCE

Disposition of All QR Scans

Sanofi US Data on File. 17

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Does your organization place presented posters on its public website

or in another publicly accessible location on the internet?

A. Yes, on our organization’s website

B. Yes, but not on our organization’s website

C. No

18

NEED MEETS OPPORTUNITY

• Poster data can be valuable while manuscript in development

• Decision-making timelines do not match publishing timelines

• Physical constraints to information are inefficient

• People need time to consider and digest information

• How can posters live longer?

19

ENTER FACULTY OF 1000 POSTERS

• Sanofi EBM initiated pilot project

across therapeutic areas

• Sample presented here

• F1000 Posters was the only

established venue identified

http://f1000.com/posters

20

CONSIDERATIONS

• Congress Agreement

– Congresses were contacted for denial/agreement and any parameters

of permission

– Most OK as long as abstract was not reprinted

– New summary written to accompany PDF of poster*

• Author Agreement

– No author objections recorded, would have taken precedent

– This was pre-Sunshine, organizational perspectives on 'Transfer of

Value' will vary

*Agency support was available, at author(s’) full discretion.

21

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Do you believe it is reasonable for congresses to charge money for

authors to include QR codes on their poster presentations? Are you

aware of authors paying for this capability?

A. YES it is reasonable, YES I have seen authors pay for this

B. YES it is reasonable, NO I have not seen authors pay for this

C. NO it is not reasonable, YES I have seen authors pay for this

D. NO it is not reasonable, NO I have not seen authors pay for this

22

CONSIDERATIONS

• Company Protection

– Access to posters had to be unsolicited and publicly available

– No advertisement of Company-specific materials

– Support of general banner ads for F1000 Posters 'Diabetes & Endocrinology' portal were permitted

– No links to Company-sponsored content, only to broader portal

• Logistics of Execution*

– Author discussion during poster development

– Creative Commons and paperwork managed in advance

– Posters were available on F1000.com after meeting

– F1000 posting, author review/approval, metrics sent to Sanofi

*Agency support was available at author(s’) full discretion.

23

WAS IT WORTH IT? All of these numbers would have been zeros

*September-December 2011 **January-August 2013

These 7 posters presented

in 2011 were viewed 813

times on F1000 (2011-2013)

24

WAS IT WORTH IT?

Is greater access more equitable, more efficient?

25

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Based on the metrics provided here…

A. I believe this IS worth doing

B. I believe this IS NOT worth doing

C. This is only worth doing if I can know who is accessing the content

26

THOUGHTS

• Resource Allocation

– Cost of abstract/poster development

– Cost of F1000 Posters works out to ~$0.96 per view (not including cost of generic banner ads)

• Interpretation

– Who is viewing them? We don't know.

– About 97% are coming from Google searches.

• Experience

– Then & Now: F1000, Our Organization

– Best Practices, Future Directions

27

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Pending external agreements and requirements, my organization…

A. Would allow me to pursue broader access to poster presentations after

the congress

B. Would NOT allow me to pursue broader access to poster presentations

after the congress

28

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS......

To ask a question, please type your query into the

‘Q&A’ chat box at the bottom left of your screen.

Every attempt will be made to answer all questions.

Video Abstracts of Peer-Reviewed Publications:

An Innovative Scientific Exchange Platform

Jennifer Kern Sliwa, PharmD

Cynthia Bossie, PhD

Janssen Scientific Affairs, LLC

DISCLOSURES

• The publication and video abstract were supported by Janssen

Scientific Affairs, LLC

• Jennifer Kern Sliwa and Cynthia Bossie are employees of

Janssen Scientific Affairs, LC, and are Johnson & Johnson

stockholders

32

AGENDA

• Evolution of innovative scientific exchange platform

• Journal selection

• Rationale for video abstracts

• Challenges

• Impact of video abstract

33

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Authors now have more choices available to share data. How are they

achieving this?

A. Increased number of journal titles and types including open access

publications

B. Supplementing articles with additional materials, e.g. video

C. Providing links to additional data

D. All of the above

E. None of the above

34

THE CASE STUDY

• Manuscript in

Clinical

Pharmacology:

Advances and

Applications

• Open-Access Journals:

35

EVOLUTION

Standard Pub

Process

• Manuscript submitted and accepted

• Clinical Pharmacology: Advances and Applications

Opportunity

• Publisher, Dove Press, invited submission of a brief video abstract (1-4 mins)

• Authors considered opportunity of value

Pursuing Video

Abstract

• No prior experience with development and approval for video abstracts

• Approval process confirmed and video produced

• Linked to manuscript at journal site

36

INNOVATIVE COMMUNICATION PLATFORM

37

JOURNAL SELECTION

• General considerations

include:

– Therapeutic area & topic

alignment with data set

– Journal parameters

– Peer-reviewed

– Medline-indexed

– Open-access when

appropriate

• PubMed vs. Medline indexing:

− Medline: application process by

NLM & review committee;

assesses processes/quality re:

content, peer review, timing, etc.

− PubMed: free search engine;

“mostly” Medline-indexed journals.

Indexing criteria & review less

stringent

− Confirm indexing at NLM catalog

http://wwwcf.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/lstrcform/med/index.html

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/journals

JOURNAL SELECTION (continued)

• Open-Access Journals:

− Fill an important need

− Explosion of new ones emerging

− Many Pubmed indexed but not

Medline-indexed

− The important of due diligence…

− Research the journal to confirm

it is reputable

− Science spoof paper reveals

little or no scrutiny at many

open-access journals. www.sciencemag.org Oct 4 ‘13

• General considerations

include:

– Therapeutic area & topic

alignment with data set

– Journal parameters

– Peer-reviewed

– Medline-indexed

– Open-access when

appropriate

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Do you include open-access journals in your journal selection

process?

A. Yes

B. No

40

JOURNAL SELECTION (continued)

• Dove – only publisher in our experience to offer video abstracts

• In the past…

– Explored JoVE, Journal of Visual Experiments, peer-reviewed scientific

video journal. http://www.jove.com/

RATIONALE FOR PRODUCING

VIDEO ABSTRACT

• Innovative scientific exchange method

• Opportunity to offer the reader another communication method

to explain a complex topic

– Mechanism of action

– Pharmacokinetics

• Other potential reasons:

– To engage an audience that may not normally read the manuscript

– Key figures and tables can be highlighted in a succinct/concise manner

42

RATIONALE ACCORDING TO

THE PUBLISHER

• Overview of publication content

and motivation behind research

• Opportunity for author to explain

importance of the work

• Enhance reader’s appreciation

and understanding of the

publication

http://www.dovepress.com/author_guidelines.php?content_id=3195

43

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

What are best cases for using enhanced data alternatives?

A. When data is complicated

B. Where significant amount of data is available

C. When limitations on article require further data dissemination

D. Target audience considerations

E. All of the above

F. None of the above

44

CHALLENGES

• Needed to confirm approval process, as no prior experience with

development and approval for video abstracts

• Timing – journal requested quick turnaround

• Resources

– Development of script

– Filming logistics

– Budget

45

GUIDELINES/PROCESS

• Healthcare Compliance, Legal, Publication Policy Owner

consulted on following approach:

– All authors agreed to produce video

– Script based largely on manuscript verbatim, supplemented by key

tables and figures from the publication

– Script approved through standard publication review process

• Medical, Biostatistics, Legal, Authors

46

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

Do you believe that there is a perception that using alternative or

additional methods to enhance data sharing is promotional?

A. Yes

B. No

47

TIMING

• Journal invite after manuscript acceptance

• Required 3 week turnaround or delay in publication of

manuscript or erratum (vs. addendum)

48

RESOURCES

• Script development

– Agency that worked on

manuscript

– Authors/reviewers

• Filming

– Willing author/presenter

– Onsite filming studio

• Personal video equipment

(e.g., iPhone) acceptable

• Technical specifications

http://www.dovepress.com/author_guidelines.php?content_id=3195

49

RESOURCES (continued)

• Budget

– Not a significant hurdle

– Small incremental cost due to:

• Script development (comparable to cost of developing abstract)

• Video production and editing

– Collaborated with in-house production crew to maximize efficiency

and value for the budget

– Can minimize by use of personal video equipment

50

AUDIENCE QUESTION

AUDIENCE QUESTION

If you have developed video abstracts in the past, who has developed

them for you?

A. Agency of Record/Preferred Vendor

B. In-house agency

C. Publisher

D. Other

51

IMPACT

• Can track the views at journal website

52

IMPACT (continued)

• Routine emails with metrics from the publisher

IMPACT (continued)

• Challenging to quantify video versus simply print

– Intuitively, this may reach a wider audience

• Produced video abstracts for four manuscripts over 2 years

• Video abstract offering will be considered, but do not anticipate it

becoming a key driver for journal selection

VIDEO ABSTRACT

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=

HM5haCF412Q

55

THANK YOU

QUESTIONS......

To ask a question, please type your query into the

‘Q&A’ chat box at the bottom left of your screen.

Every attempt will be made to answer all questions.

UPCOMING ISMPP U TOPICS

• Stay tuned for the upcoming ISMPP U topics

– Plagiarism (January 2014)

– Copyrights (February 2014)

58

THANK YOU FOR ATTENDING!

We hope you enjoyed today's presentation.

We will be providing a link to the survey rather than the form

itself. Please take a moment to click on the link and fill out the

survey, so your valuable feedback can be used to develop future

educational offerings.

59