Factors influencing successful peer-reviewed publication of original research presentations from the American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology (ASPO)

Perspectives on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Research: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Pediatric Otolaryngologists

“…Before the pandemic, the lack of protected time was identified as the primary barrier to research among ASPO members (89%), which is consistent with prior studies, including a previous survey of ASPO members published in 2015 [ 6 ], as well as studies in other medical specialties [ 5 , 12 ]. The pandemic presented a new set of challenges.…”

“…Residents of surgical sub-specialties report a lack of time, statistical knowledge, research interest, and access to supervisors and mentors, as well as a lengthy research ethics approval process, as the greatest barriers in their research endeavors [ 4 , 5 ]. In a survey of 34 American Society of Pediatric Otolaryngology (ASPO) members, published in 2015, lack of time was reported as the most significant barrier to successful publication [ 6 ].…”

A re‐appraisal of publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolaryngology Research Society meetings

“…In this study, 43.7% of the abstracts were not published and no attempt was made to contact these authors. The main reasons for failure to publish have been attributed to having insufficient time to complete a manuscript for publication and rejection by peer‐reviewed journals . Some of the works presented at national meetings were performed by medical students, registrars and research fellows who have changing interests or insufficient time, preventing completion of the manuscript.…”

An 8-year longitudinal analysis of UK ophthalmic publication rates

“…As reported by MacKinney and others [5][6][7] three key factors contributing to this lower publication rate are the prioritisation of research, time available to clinicians, and the quality of research produced. With this in mind it is interesting that no significant change in publication rate was observed from 2005-2012 given the augmentation of the role of the clinical scientist overseen by the newly created NIHR as a result of the Walport report of 2005.…”

“…This last factor has been reported as the most common reason for nonpublication, as well as difficulties between coauthors. [5][6][7][8] As such the rate of conversion from conference presentation to full publication is likely to reflect the amount of resources scientists in a given field can direct towards research output, as well as the quality of research.…”