January has a habit of feeling deceptively calm. Timelines look manageable, trackers are still neat, and the year ahead appears full of good intentions. It is also, quietly, the moment when publication programmes are either set up to run smoothly or destined to become reactive later on.

If publication programmes unravel, it is rarely because the science was weak or the team lacked expertise. More often, it is because a handful of predictable issues quietly compounded over the year.

Review cycles slowed and approvals became unpredictable.
Congress deadlines clustered and everything became “urgent” at once.
Stakeholder groups shifted, version control got messy, and clarity eroded.
Data arrived later than planned and strategies had to pivot mid-stream.
Too much coordination, chasing, and decision-making landed on one or two people.

None of this is unusual. What is striking is how often these problems could have been avoided with a few well-structured conversations early in the year. The difference between a smooth year and a reactive one tends to come down to three conversations that strong teams and experienced partners have as a matter of course.

Conversation 1: “Where are this year’s pressure points most likely to be?”

Every publication programme has its tell-tale moments of tension. 

Data that arrives later than hoped; congress deadlines that inconveniently pile up; review cycles that slow as priorities multiply; teams that change shape as people join, move on, or step into new roles. None of this is unusual, but it does have a habit of causing trouble when it is only acknowledged once the pressure is already on. 

A candid conversation early in the year allows everyone to plan with their eyes open. It brings clarity on where capacity is most likely to be stretched, which milestones are at greatest risk of slipping, and where flexibility will matter most. This might mean recognising periods of intense congress activity, being realistic about internal approval bottlenecks, or accepting that some programmes may need to pivot as data evolves.

Key prompts to explore:

• Where do we expect timelines to compress this year (for example, around major congresses)?
• Which review or approval steps have historically slowed things down?
• Where are we most dependent on data timing or external inputs?
• Are there team changes, onboarding needs, or capability gaps we should plan for?

Decisions to align on:

• Which milestones are least flexible and which can move if needed?
• How will we handle bottlenecks when they arise?
• Where can responsibilities shift if capacity is stretched?

What this looks like in practice

• Acknowledging upfront that two congress submissions will overlap and agreeing how resourcing will flex.
• Accepting that a particular review group is likely to be slow and building contingency time into the plan.
• Planning additional support during periods when new team members are still finding their feet.

Conversation 2: “Where can you add value beyond delivery?”

Once timelines and risks are on the table, it is worth pausing to ask whether your publication partner is being used to their full potential. Not to take control, and certainly not to step on toes, but to contribute where it genuinely helps take weight off your team.

For many teams, this means inviting your partner into the thinking earlier. That might include sense-checking publication plans as data emerges, contributing to strategy discussions, or taking responsibility for defined workstreams that reduce pressure on internal teams. It can also mean drawing on your partner’s broader perspective to spot opportunities you may not have capacity to pursue. 

Many publication managers value partners who can suggest ways to make a strategy more engaging, help translate complex data for sales or marketing teams, or spot opportunities to extend reach beyond the obvious audiences. These are often small interventions, but they can significantly increase the impact of the work without increasing the burden on already stretched teams.

Key prompts to explore:

• Where would earlier input make decisions easier or faster?
• Which workstreams could be owned or led externally to reduce internal coordination?
• Where could strategic input help sharpen messaging, sequencing, or audience focus?

Decisions to align on:

• Which activities the partner can proactively manage, not just respond to.
• How and when partners are brought into planning discussions.
• Where responsibility for quality and momentum is shared.

What this looks like in practice:

• Involving your partner early as data emerges to sense-check feasibility and sequencing.
• Asking for recommendations on extending the life of a dataset beyond a single congress.
• Delegating defined workstreams so internal teams are not constantly context-switching.

Conversation 3: “What does success actually look like by the end of the year?”

This conversation is easy to overlook and quietly powerful when it is had well. 

Amid timelines, trackers, and submission counts, it is tempting to define success purely by what was delivered. How many abstracts were submitted? How many manuscripts were published? How many deadlines were met? Useful, certainly, but rarely the full story. 

A more valuable discussion steps back and asks what you want the year to feel like when December arrives. Were the publications thoughtful and well positioned, not just completed? Did projects move with a sense of momentum rather than constant urgency? When plans inevitably changed, did the programme bend smoothly, or did it fracture under pressure? 

Aligning on what a “good year” actually means helps set expectations long before the final submission. It encourages shared ownership of quality, not just quantity, and creates space to talk about how decisions will be made when trade-offs arise. It also reframes success as something broader than outputs alone, encompassing how effectively the partnership worked together along the way.

Key prompts to explore:

• What would make us feel this was a strong, well-run year?
• Where does quality matter more than volume?
• How do we want the programme to behave when plans inevitably change?

Decisions to align on:

• How trade-offs will be made when timelines and ambition collide.
• What “good enough” looks like in high-pressure moments, and what is non-negotiable.
• How success will be assessed beyond simple delivery metrics.

What this looks like in practice:

• Agreeing that fewer, better-positioned publications are preferable to rushed volume.
• Aligning on principles for decision-making when data timing shifts.
• Defining success as sustained momentum, not constant urgency.

Why these conversations matter together

Each of these conversations is useful on its own. Together, they are what unobtrusively hold a publication programme together.

An early understanding of risk creates stability. When pressure points are anticipated rather than discovered mid-year, teams can respond calmly instead of reactively. Space is created to adapt without panic.

Thoughtful contribution, whether through leadership or strategic participation, protects quality. When partners are invited to add value beyond delivery, decisions improve, workstreams run more smoothly, and standards are easier to uphold even when timelines tighten.

A shared view of what success looks like brings focus. Clear outcomes act as a steady reference point when priorities shift, helping teams decide what truly matters and what can flex.

When these elements align early, something important happens. Capacity, quality, and flexibility stop competing with each other. They begin to reinforce one another, allowing publication programmes to move through the year with far more confidence and far fewer fire drills.

‍

A practical January reset

These are not abstract ideas. They are the conversations that experienced publication teams return to year after year because they work.

At Rx Communications, this is the kickoff framework we encourage at the start of every year. It helps teams move into January with clarity, confidence, and a shared understanding of how the programme will run when things inevitably get busy.

If you would like support structuring these conversations for your own programme, we are always happy to talk.