Enabling remuneration for patient authors of company-sponsored publications: approaches and case study examples aligned with Good Publication practice.

Abstract

Patient authors have been increasingly included on company-sponsored research publications, contributing a unique and needed expertise. Patients are routinely and rightfully remunerated for their contributions to advisory boards and non-authorship publication activities, such as peer review. However, the remuneration of patients for authorship activities has remained inconsistent and even contentious. Here, a working group of Good Publication Practice (GPP) steering committee members, patients and patient involvement and engagement experts, and industry partners present six commonly described barriers to and arguments against patient author remuneration. The working group provides practical solutions and counterarguments to enable industry sponsors to equitably, fairly, and transparently remunerate patient authors. The barriers include (1) general resistance to or unawareness of patient authorship; (2) conflict of interest and compliance risks; (3) operational and logistical challenges; (4) concerns about equity, fairness, and scalability; (5) external perceptions within scholarly publishing; and (6) lack of clarity regarding alternative methods of recognition. Solutions to these barriers are supported by a case study from industry to share real-world implementation recommendations. These recommendations provide an action plan for the development and utilization of a framework to enable patient author remuneration, based on one company's experience. In short, the principles and guidance that underpin fair remuneration in other patient engagement activities can and should be extended to authorship, ensuring appropriate recognition of the value that patient authors bring, rather than risking the absence of patient authors altogether.