Run a manuscript meeting that ends with decisions and evidence

1. Prepare the meeting around decisions

Ask contributors to send the current manuscript version, a short list of changes and the decisions they need. Keep the main document in one agreed location and identify the exact version in the agenda. Link to the relevant analysis output or reference record instead of attaching a second, slightly different copy of every file.

A useful pre-read question is specific: “Which population belongs in this denominator?” or “Does this wording match the analysis we actually ran?” A request to “discuss the paper” gives participants little chance to prepare. Let the person closest to the source explain the missing evidence before the group chooses a sentence.

Keep participant-level data and confidential third-party material within the approved access arrangement. Meeting minutes usually need a source location and a decision, not pasted personal data. If someone cannot access an essential file, record that as a dependency rather than treating silence as agreement with a result they could not examine.

2. Use a bounded agenda, then adapt it

The proposed 35-minute agenda allocates time to changed evidence, the main scientific issue, the manuscript, dependencies and the closing readback. The sum is 5 + 10 + 10 + 7 + 3 = 35 minutes. These are planning allocations, not observed durations or a benchmark for a productive team.

Choose fewer questions when the analysis needs a careful explanation. A complex methodological issue may need a separate session with the right expertise. Carrying an unresolved question forward with an owner is better than calling it agreed because the allocated time expired. Record any decision to seek another contributor’s advice and what they will be asked to examine.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Read a fictional meeting record

In this fictional meeting on 8 September, a team reviews manuscript version 0.4. Salma has drafted the Methods description of missing-data handling, but the corresponding analysis script has not run on the final dataset. Omar needs the data custodian to confirm the exclusion flag before running it. Lina has not yet reviewed the revised Discussion. These are the only completed and pending facts assumed in the example.

The group records three actions: Salma will mark the Methods wording provisional; Omar will request the exclusion definition by 10 September and run the analysis only after it is resolved; Lina will review the identified Discussion version by 11 September. The meeting record does not say those future actions happened. At the next meeting, each needs a result or an updated blocker.

4. Separate writing, analysis and approval states

Give related tasks separate entries. A paragraph can be drafted while its analysis is pending. A checked table can exist before co-authors approve the manuscript containing it. A meeting can agree to propose a new analysis without approving a study amendment. Use states that describe the actual task: draft available, awaiting input, executed, checked or confirmed by the responsible person.

For the fictional example, the Methods text is a provisional draft, the analysis is waiting for a definition and the Discussion awaits review. Combining them into “manuscript 90% complete” would hide different obstacles behind a number with no defined denominator. If the team uses a percentage, first define exactly which tasks it counts and show the critical unfinished dependencies alongside it.

Add a completion condition before assigning a task. “Check Table 2” could mean arithmetic, code reproduction, language or layout. Specify which check is requested and where its result will be recorded. That helps a colleague finish the right work without implying they reviewed aspects outside their expertise.

5. Record contribution without promising authorship

NISO’s CRediT guidance supports agreed descriptions of contributors’ roles; the taxonomy does not decide authorship. ICMJE authorship criteria include final approval and accountability alongside substantive contribution. Apply the target journal’s criteria separately from meeting attendance.

Minutes can help the group remember who developed a method, checked an interpretation or revised an argument. Keep those descriptions factual and give people a chance to correct them. A person who was absent may still make a substantial contribution, while someone who chaired a meeting may have performed only an administrative role in that particular session.

Do not use a task board to settle a disputed byline by counting completed cards. Discuss the actual contribution and required responsibilities through the appropriate team and institutional process. Keep the contribution discussion connected to the work, but give unresolved authorship questions their own explicit record.

Reference: NISO: implementing CRediT · ICMJE: authors and contributors

6. Close actions by checking the returned evidence

End the meeting by reading back the decisions, owners and dates. Ask whether the summary accurately reflects the discussion, especially a conditional decision. “Use this wording if the analysis supports it” must retain the condition in the minutes. Send the agreed record through the team’s normal channel and preserve later corrections visibly.

At the following meeting, inspect the promised output before closing the action. A file uploaded, analysis executed, result checked and manuscript approved are distinct achievements. If the deadline slipped, identify the changed dependency and agree the next step. Over several meetings, the record can show recurring obstacles; it does not by itself establish that the meeting format improved scientific quality or reduced time to publication.

Questions for a practical final check

• The pre-read names the version and needed decisions.
• Time allocations fit the questions and available expertise.
• Each action has an owner and completion evidence.
• Prose, analysis and approval have separate states.
• Contribution records remain distinct from authorship decisions.
• The next meeting checks results before closing actions.