Reporting guidelines (RG) aim to improve research transparency and ensure high-quality study reporting. Similarly, clinical trial registration policies aim to reduce bias in results reporting by ensuring prospective registration of all trial outcomes. Failure to adhere to quality standards documented in RGs may result in low-quality and irreproducible research. Herein, we investigate the adherence to common RGs and trial registration policies in 21 oncology journals. We surveyed the Instructions for Authors page for each of the included oncology journals for adherence to common reporting guidelines and trial registration policies. We corresponded with editors to determine accepted study types and cross-referenced this information with a journal's RGs and trial registration policies to calculate the per cent of journals that adhere to a specific guideline or policy. 76.2% (16/21) of oncology journals surveyed adhere to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines for clinical trials while only 33.3% (7/21) adhere to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for observational studies. Similarly, 76.2% (16/21) of oncology journals adhere to clinical trial registration policies. We further demonstrate that journal adherence to RGs positively affects author reporting, despite adherence to trial registration policies showing no such benefit. Our results show that oncology journals adhere to RGs and trial registration policies at a higher rate than other specialties, but nonetheless show room for improvement. We conclude that oncology journal adherence to RGs and trial registration policies is encouraging, but nonetheless suboptimal. We recommend the adoption of RGs and trial registration policies by all oncology journals.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication.MethodsAbstracts presented at the 2010–2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication.ResultsA total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956.ConclusionsA 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.

No abstract

No abstract