Publication Fate of Abstracts Presented at Four British Surgical Meetings: An 11-Year Follow-Up.

Conferences Impact factor Meeting abstracts Publications Scientific meetings Surgery

Journal

The Journal of surgical research
ISSN: 1095-8673
Titre abrégé: J Surg Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0376340

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Historique:
received: 06 07 2018
revised: 19 08 2018
accepted: 13 09 2018
entrez: 12 12 2018
pubmed: 12 12 2018
medline: 12 12 2018
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The gold standard for research is publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There is a discrepancy between the number of abstracts presented at scientific meetings and the number published as full articles. We identified publication rates for the 2012 meetings of four British surgical societies. These were the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI), the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). We also compared publication rates with these societies' 2001 meetings and identified univariate factors associated with publication. PubMed was searched to identify publications stemming from meeting abstracts. We extracted abstract characteristics to identify factors associated with publication and also characteristics of subsequent publications to enable comparison. Publication rates were 24.1% (ASGBI), 24.6% (BTS), 21.7% (ACPGBI), and 39.4% (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland). Rates for ASGBI, BTS, and ACPGBI meetings were significantly lower compared to 2001 meetings (P = 0.001-0.026). Mean time to publication was 12.1-22.0 mo. Mean 5-y impact factor differed significantly between meetings (P = 0.001), with the BTS meeting having the highest mean 5-y impact factor (4.658). Factors associated with publication included being an oral presentation (ASGBI P = 0.001), multi-institution study (ASGBI P = 0.003), or randomized-controlled trial (BTS P = 0.049). Reduced publication rates may represent increased acceptance of low-quality abstracts at meetings or a more competitive journal submission process. Further data are required to strengthen conclusions. Nonetheless, authors and meeting organizers should push for higher quality abstracts to promote future peer-reviewed journal publication.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The gold standard for research is publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There is a discrepancy between the number of abstracts presented at scientific meetings and the number published as full articles. We identified publication rates for the 2012 meetings of four British surgical societies. These were the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI), the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). We also compared publication rates with these societies' 2001 meetings and identified univariate factors associated with publication.
MATERIALS AND METHODS METHODS
PubMed was searched to identify publications stemming from meeting abstracts. We extracted abstract characteristics to identify factors associated with publication and also characteristics of subsequent publications to enable comparison.
RESULTS RESULTS
Publication rates were 24.1% (ASGBI), 24.6% (BTS), 21.7% (ACPGBI), and 39.4% (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland). Rates for ASGBI, BTS, and ACPGBI meetings were significantly lower compared to 2001 meetings (P = 0.001-0.026). Mean time to publication was 12.1-22.0 mo. Mean 5-y impact factor differed significantly between meetings (P = 0.001), with the BTS meeting having the highest mean 5-y impact factor (4.658). Factors associated with publication included being an oral presentation (ASGBI P = 0.001), multi-institution study (ASGBI P = 0.003), or randomized-controlled trial (BTS P = 0.049).
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Reduced publication rates may represent increased acceptance of low-quality abstracts at meetings or a more competitive journal submission process. Further data are required to strengthen conclusions. Nonetheless, authors and meeting organizers should push for higher quality abstracts to promote future peer-reviewed journal publication.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30527466
pii: S0022-4804(18)30669-3
doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.09.047
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

139-148

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Alexander Light (A)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: alexander.light@kcl.ac.uk.

Maria Dadabhoy (M)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Abigail Burrows (A)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Madura Nandakumar (M)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Tanya Gupta (T)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Sandeep Karthikeyan (S)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Allen Daniel (A)

GKT School of Medical Education, King's College London, Guy's Campus, London, United Kingdom.

Classifications MeSH