I have lost count of the number of times I have reviewed a piece of work and found myself thinking: this should have landed more strongly than it does. 

The data are there. The effort is evident. Yet, something does not quite carry through. The message feels just out of reach, as though the reader has been given all the ingredients, but not quite shown what to do with them. It is a curious and rather persistent pattern. Not a failure of science, nor of capability, but of how the story is shaped in the final stages.

So, this month, I wanted to look a little more closely at where that shaping can begin to slip, and why even very good data can, on occasion, fall flatter than anyone intended.

‍

Yours truly, 

Ruth 

‍

‍

Where good data loses momentum

Strong data rarely fail on quality. Ground tends to be lost later, when data are expected to stand alone and carry meaning without enough support. That is where small gaps begin to have disproportionate effects. 

The most common of these gaps is narrative. The data are accurate, carefully presented, and often technically robust, yet the “so what” is left understated. The introduction and conclusion exist, but the thread between them is faint. The reader is expected to connect the dots. Many will not. What remains is information without direction.

Positioning follows closely behind. Results can be genuinely meaningful, yet appear marginal if their place in the wider treatment landscape is not made explicit. What these data confirm, challenges, or changes is not always stated clearly. Competitor activity is often treated lightly or omitted altogether. Without that frame of reference, significance becomes harder to recognise.

Audience misalignment adds another layer. Outputs are written as though for a broad scientific audience, when in practice they need to land with a much more specific group. The result is a disconnect between what is written and what is needed. Language can drift too far into technical detail, or soften to the point where the message becomes difficult to locate.

None of this reflects a weakness in the data. It reflects what happens when interpretation and communication are not given the same level of attention as generation. That is where impact is most often lost.

‍

Why this happens, even in experienced teams 

These patterns are not limited to less experienced teams. They persist because of the conditions in which congress and publication work is delivered.

Timing is a consistent factor. Narrative decisions are often made late, once data are locked and deadlines are close. At that stage, the emphasis shifts to completion. There is little space to interrogate the story or test how well it holds together. Outputs move forward in a technically complete state, but without the same level of strategic clarity.

Ownership is rarely centralised. Generation of data, publication planning, and communication sit across different functions. Each brings depth of expertise, but the narrative does not always travel cleanly between them. Without clear responsibility for the through-line, the story can fragment and positioning becomes less distinct.

Caution plays a role as well. In a highly regulated environment, the instinct to avoid overstatement is both understandable and necessary. However, this can lead to an over-correction, where important signals are softened to the point that their relevance is no longer clear. The intention is to protect credibility, but the effect can be to reduce impact.

Caution also shapes the outcome. The need to avoid overstatement is well placed, but it can lead to language that obscures rather than clarifies. Signals remain present in the data, but are no longer easy to interpret. Credibility is preserved, but impact is reduced.

These are structural challenges that arise from the way work is organised and delivered. Which is precisely why they persist, even in the most experienced teams.

Format constraints reinforce all of this. Abstracts, posters, and manuscripts limit what can be said and how it can be structured. Without deliberate choices about priority, messages compete within a restricted space. What is excluded becomes as important as what is included, yet those decisions are not always made with intent.

These are structural conditions rather than isolated missteps. They explain why the same issues continue to appear across teams and organisations.

A practical lens: strengthening impact without changing the data 

Before finalising any congress or publication output, three questions can be used to test whether the communication is carrying its weight.

‍

1.  What is the one thing this audience should take away? If this is not clearly defined, the message fragments as content is condensed and reviewed. 

2. Where does this data sit in the wider landscape? If that context is not made explicit, relevance is easy to miss.

3.  What should happen as a result of this communication? If the implication is not visible, the data remains descriptive rather than influential. 

Spotlight on the blog: How to Spot a Publication That Will Need Reworking (Before it Does) 

Early signs of weak narrative or positioning are often visible well before a draft is finalised. They tend to appear in how the story is forming, rather than in the data alone. The blog explores these signals in more detail, outlining what to look for and how to address it before rework becomes necessary. Read the blog here: link