n summary, we believe that choosing a title should be deliberate and while it is often the last thing an author does in preparing his or her manuscript for publication, it is important to be thoughtful in the process. To that end our vision is that Advances in Neonatal Care is the FIRST-place neonatal nurses and neonatal care providers go to for the best evidence to support caregiving of NICU infants and families; please choose a title that best represents your work. In addition to the title, please also thoughtfully consider the key words chosen to go with your manuscript. Advances in Neonatal Care allows authors to submit up to 10 key words. We encourage authors to provide a through list of key words. This is another way to make the article discoverable. Authors can do this by examining their references, working with a librarian to explore MeSH terms and even conducting a search with the key words they choose to make sure that an article like theirs does indeed come into the search. Choosing 10 key words can help ensure that the work is discoverable and does contribute appropriately to the science. Again, we thank you for your readership and for your submissions to Advances in Neonatal Care.

id consider whether some of our recommendationscould be accomplished by amendments to company–author agreements, but decided that such recommenda-tions for ‘good practice for author agreements’ were be-yond the remit and scope of this article and that GPP3 [5]adequately covers this aspect of author–sponsor relation-ship. Many of these recommendations are drawn from theworking group’s experience across a variety of diseaseareas and conferences. However, this is also a limitation,in that by the nature of the authors’ work, their experiencelies in conferences and conference submission systemswith strong industry involvement. We believe that theserecommendations could be applied to any type ofscientific/medical conference and are as relevant to aca-demic research as to company-sponsored research. Con-ferences maintain their value to the scientific communityby covering the latest research and providing a forum fordiscussion: this value must not be lost due to lack oftransparency or ethics in the preparation and presentationof the new data. By following these recommendations,industry professionals, authors and conference organizerswill improve consistency, transparency and integrity ofpublications submitted to conferences worldwide.It is earnestly hoped that future input from conferenceorganizers and societies, as well anyone involved in submit-ting research to conferences, will augment and strengthenthese recommendations. We therefore welcome feedba

example, where a conference requires a presenter to belisted as an author. All authors should be involved in the development,and approve the final version, of any abstract, posteror slides that bears their names. For studies involvinglarge numbers of researchers it may be most efficientfor a subgroup of those involved in the studies todevelop conference abstracts and presentations (similarto the use of a writing group to develop publicationsfrom large studies). Posters and slides should list key contributors anddescribe their contributions to the research anddevelopment of the presentation. Study registration numbers (e.g. ClinicalTrials.gov,EudraCT, PROSPERO) should be included onabstracts, posters and slides. All sources of funding for the research and itspresentation, and any author conflicts of interest,should be disclosed on posters and slides, on theconference submission site, and if space permits,on abstracts. Any medical writing support and associated fundingshould be acknowledged on posters and slides, onthe conference submission site, and if space permits,on abstracts.These recommendations are mapped against the devel-opment of an abstract and subsequent conference presen-tation workflow in Fig. 1, referenced by section number.Recommendations for conference organizersConference organizers should: encourage the inclusion of contributor lists onposters and slides; include a field for trial registration details onabstract forms (outside the word or character limit)and publish this information with the abstract; include a field for sponsor information on abstractforms (outside the word or character limit) andpublish this information with the abstract; include a field for disclosing medical writing supporton abstract forms (outside the word or characterlimit) and publish this information with the abstract; use ORCID identifiers (individual researcheridentifiers [11]) to identify authors and presenters; not set arbitrary limits on the number of authors,and permit the use of study group names; and distinguish between authors (meeting the ICMJEcriteria) and any additional individuals (who are notauthors or contributors) included in the submission,for example, as a result of a requirement for asociety member to sponsor submissions. Withlimited space in any printed book of abstracts, thisFoster et al. Research Integrity and Peer Review (2019) 4:11 Page 3 of 11

These recommendations, on Good Practice for Confer-ence Abstracts and Presentations (GPCAP), focus oncompany-sponsored research (see the ‘Note on termin-ology’ section). However, they do not cover other companyactivities that may be linked to conferences (e.g. satellitesymposia organized alongside scientific conferences, med-ical education and marketing activities) because these aregoverned by regional and national legislation or codes(e.g. EFPIA code of practice [8], FDA regulations [9]). Aswith the GPP guidelines, GPCAP focuses on the pres-entation of all types of company-sponsored researchand the specific challenges surrounding this, ratherthan investigator-sponsored or investigator-initiatedtrials or research (where companies have no role intheir presentation or publication), although many of theprinciples also apply to the presentation of other typesof research at scientific meetings. The aim of GPCAP istherefore to provide guidance on good submission andpresentation practice for scientific and medical congresses,specifically addressing certain aspects where current

Research that has been sponsored (see the ‘Note on termin-ology’ section for precise definitions of these terms) bycommercial organizations (e.g. pharmaceutical, medical de-vice and biotechnology companies) is often presented atscientific and medical conferences. These conferences arepivotal for the presentation of data from ongoing researchprojects and clinical trials to the relevant audience and areoften the first opportunity to disclose and discuss poten-tially practice-changing data. They facilitate early communi-cation of data long before publication of a full manuscriptand also provide the opportunity to present results of add-itional analyses such as secondary and/or exploratoryendpoints and post hoc analyses. However, while abstractssubmitted to conferences are reviewed by a scientific com-mittee for suitability and interest to the audience prior toacceptance, it is important to note that they are not consid-ered peer-reviewed as they are not subject to the samerigorous peer-review process as are journal articles. Posterand oral presentations based upon accepted abstracts arerarely, if ever reviewed. Furthermore, a recent systematicreview showed that less than 50% of all studies accepted asabstracts went on to be published in full following presenta-tion at a conference [1]. While it is desirable to strive forfull publication after a conference presentation to ensuretransparency and allow healthcare professionals to makeappropriate informed decisions based on the peer-reviewedliterature, this is not always practical and/or achievable.Therefore, it is important that abstracts and conferencepresentations, particularly for company-sponsored research,are developed with as rigorous a process as that of a fullpublication, because these may u