If You Present will you Publish? An Analysis of Abstracts at the Craniofacial Society of Great Britain and Ireland Conferences 2000–2009

Abstract

Objective : To assess the number of publications in peer-reviewed journals that are generated from the verbal presentations at the annual conference of the Craniofacial Society of Great Britain and Ireland. Design : A list of the verbal presentations (2000 to 2009) was obtained from the Craniofacial Society of Great Britain and Ireland website. Using a web-based PubMed search engine, a search was made using title, key words, and main authors. Main Outcome Measure : The primary outcome measure was the presentation's publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Secondary measures included specialty of the first author, the journal in which the article was published and its impact factor, and topic of the article. Results : Of 318 verbal presentations, 67 (21.07%) went on to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. By topic, 50.7% were surgical and 12% concerned speech. The first author was in the plastic surgical specialty in 29.9% and in either speech-language therapy or orthodontics in 17.9% each of papers. In addition, 50.7% of papers were published in the The Craniofacial-Cleft Palate Journal. The overall 2-year impact factor was 0.941. Mean lead time to publication was 29.02 months (range, 2 to 110 months). Conclusions : The publication rate is low in comparison with the rate of 44.5% given for all specialties in a Cochrane review in 2007. This may be related to the specialist nature of the subject matter or to the type of research presented at the conference and the difficulty in carrying out high-quality research on cleft lip and palate due to limited numbers and a long lead time to outcomes.

Abstracts presented at the European Association for Osseointegration (EAO) Congresses: Publication fate and discrepancies with full‐length articles

“…In this study, the FPP of RCTs (66.1%) was nearly twice as high as that of all study types (36.4%). This was in accordance with previous studies that reported a higher FPP of RCTs than that of other studies (Dahllof et al, 2008;Moar, Butterworth, 2013;Scherer et al, 2018). Thus, the proportion of RCTs in conference abstracts might also have an impact on FPP.…”

Thirty percent of abstracts presented at dental conferences are published in full: a systematic review

“…conference date). Most of the contacted authors kindly replied [16][17][18][19][20]23]. When these efforts failed, relevant data were imputed using pre-specified methods (Appendix B).…”

“…Only 8 studies (15 subsamples) checked and included full publications that were published before the conference. In terms of presentation type, one study (8 subsamples) only investigated oral presentation abstracts [18], while another study (two subsamples) only looked at poster abstracts [19]. (Table 2) …”

“…[13,14] In recent years, there have been many studies investigating the publication fate of abstracts presented at dental conferences. [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] These however, have not been analyzed in an integrated approach. In addition, although many studies with long follow-up supported a follow-up length of at least four to five years for publication fate research, [2,15,22,24] previous systematic reviews regarding publication fate had no strict eligibility criterion in terms of follow-up length (minimum follow-up of included studies: eight months to two years).…”

The 100 Most-Cited Human Cleft Lip and Palate–Related Articles Published in Dentistry, Oral Surgery, and Medicine Journals

“…The only dedicated, cleft-specific journal, The Cleft Palate–Craniofacial Journal (CPCJ), has grown in scope and thrived since its beginnings (Sharp, 2014). There is, nevertheless, a low publication rate within the field, with a relatively long lead time but with a higher publication rate in science- and surgery-based subjects (Moar and Butterworth, 2013).…”