Urology, like all other medical specialties, values the quality of its peer-reviewed evidence base. Although editorial groups like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors began providing detailed advice about the quality and reporting of publications during the twentieth century, the specific challenges of collaborative research and authoring with company sponsors also needed attention. This need prompted the development of the original Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline by Wager, Field, and Grossman.¹

GPP

The original GPP guideline was intended to function similarly to other types of “good practice,” like Good Clinical Practice, which was first released by the International Committee on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use in 1996.¹ A few years later, the ICMJE expressed reservations about data transparency and the ability of authors to be accountable for published study results. Notably, to protect intellectual property rights, investigators and other authors were often denied access to study data. In addition, it could be difficult to identify different studies and patient cohorts because there was no regularized way of registering studies so that peer reviewers could identify them. Other elements of study conduct and the role of contract research organizations were not always disclosed.²

Wager and colleagues said that company-sponsored research should be held to the same ethical standards as any biomedical publication. The initial GPP document adopted the measures suggested by ICMJE and strongly encouraged attention to transparency, maintaining authorship standards and clearly explaining the publication process for company-sponsored research.¹

The International Society of Medical Publication Professionals, founded in 2005, adopted the GPP guidelines and has sponsored periodic updates to keep up to date with developments in publishing.^3,4 These iterations introduced new information about day-to-day practices in publication planning and development, such as the role of steering committees, as well as providing advice as the field expanded. The ICMJE guidelines⁵ and the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement⁶ provided an important basis for these GPP iterations, which focused primarily on publications of clinical trial data.^3,4

The 2022 GPP Update

The 2022 update of GPP, also known as GPP 2022, reflects developments in the publication profession, which now extends beyond clinical trial publications to cover all scientific areas.⁷ GPP has expanded its focus beyond CONSORT to other disciplines covered by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network.

The GPP 2022 supplement describes best practices for publication planning, such as establishing steering committees, developing a publication plan, and determining whether contributors have met applicable authorship criteria. Advice is also given about the leadership that publication professionals should show, such as developing policies and training teams. The supplement now gives insight into publication professional roles that can be useful to authors and academic partners. Recommendations for including patients in the publication process, working in corporate alliances, enhanced publication content, and plain language summaries are also provided. Hot topics, such as best use of preprints to serve medical and scientific needs, are also included.⁷

A primary focus of GPP 2022 is inclusivity. An example of this inclusivity is that regional investigators should be included in author bylines. The supplement was redesigned to provide an overview suitable for novices or students, and an emphasis on enhanced content, plain language summaries, and patient inclusion in the publication process all support this general aim. For instance, GPP now recommends that patients be treated as full participants when they contribute to publications or serve on steering committees.⁷

Focus on Urology

Of course, GPP can only offer general advice, which means that subject matter experts, editors, investigators, and other academics also have important roles to play in applying the GPP principles. Only experts working within a specific area can determine how the GPP principles should be applied in specialized situations. For instance, journal editors can set guidelines for authorship, number of authors, plain language summaries, enhanced content, and peer review. Investigators can comment on how much time and effort will be needed to follow the guidelines in GPP.

Urology as a medical specialty has shown leadership in considering its own best publication practices. Further leadership is possible. For instance, GPP does not include advice for conducting peer review: this is an area that is worthy of comment by peer reviewers within specific expert areas like urology.

We hope that the American Urological Association will adopt GPP 2022 and will encourage its members to share best practices for authorship and publishing, including areas like peer review that are not included in GPP.