How many times have I heard that from an auditor? But writing it down is one thing - making it intelligible and interesting is quite another. A good example is a clinical report. The bottom line question is, "what does it all mean?". For this reason the discussion and conclusions sections are critical, because here is where the results are interpreted, not just recycled as is too often the case. I spend a fair bit of my time in reviewing both unpublished and published clinical trials, and the latter particularly often surprise me. Conclusions commonly get into print which are entirely unsupported by the data. Why does peer review allow this? You tell me.

Anyway, as I enjoy being a generalist I have become experienced with a wide range of document types, from regulatory to marketing, and I don't see why the former should not be interesting and the latter scientifically sound. Here are a few examples, and there is a PDF on the site with much more detail.

• Manuscripts for publication
• Data on file summaries
• Product monographs.
• Poster presentations.
• Conference reports and proceedings.
• Slide presentations.
• Current awareness reviews.
• In-depth analysis of competitor literature.
• Clinical study reports to regulatory standards.
• Expert report management.
• Investigator brochures for clinical research.
• Standard operating procedures for drug development.