Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings

Roy, D.; Sankar, Vignesh; Hughes, Jonathan; Jones, A. S.; Fenton, John E.

doi:10.1046/j.0307-7772.2001.00467.x

Cited by 75 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Riordan [13 ]surveyed 88 of 89 authors whose abstracts, presented at two international pediatric meetings, were not followed by a publication. This publication supports the findings of others, identifying the major reason for nonpublication as a simple failure of the investigators to submit papers to peer-reviewed journals [13,14,15]. Weber et al [14] conducted a review to identify all abstracts presented at a medical meeting in 1991 that were not followed by publication of a paper within 5 years.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 59%

Presentation and Publication Rates among Women and Men at AAO-HNS Meetings

Cohen

Mirza²,

Dow³

et al. 2012

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: We attempted to assess the percentages of abstracts submitted to annual American Academy of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) meetings from 2000 to 2004 by both women and men. We sought to determine the subsequent peer-reviewed overall publication rates for all submissions. We also studied trends of submission among female presenters and compared them to males. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: Tertiary academic medical center. Methods: 2,463 total abstracts presented between 2000 and 2004 were searched in the computerized databases Medline and Pubmed in 2008. The published articles were examined by reviewers to assess publication rate, time to publication, gender of authorship and subspecialty of publication. Results: 1,413 (57.35%) posters and 1,051 (42.65%) oral presentations were presented from 2000 to 2004. Of the 1,413 posters presented, 275 (19.46%) were presented by female first authors. The female first-author poster publication rate was 33.81%, while the male first-author poster publication rate was 36.99% (p = 0.353). Of 1,051 oral presentations, 154 (14.65%) were presented by female first authors. The male first-author oral presentation publication rate was 60.98%, while the female first-author oral presentation publication rate was 59.09% (p = 0.657). There were no statistical differences in time to publication for posters (p = 0.796) or oral presentations (p = 0.737) between the genders. The majority of female first-author submissions involved pediatric (29.94%) and general (17.88%) otolaryngology. Conclusion: While women are increasingly drawn to otolaryngology, they represented less than 20% of total submissions at the annual AAO-HNS meetings from 2000 to 2004. Women more commonly submit poster than oral presentations. The eventual publication rates of abstracts and the average time to publication of presentations are equal between the genders.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 59%

Presentation and Publication Rates among Women and Men at AAO-HNS Meetings

Cohen

Mirza²,

Dow³

et al. 2012

ORL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is also possible some abstracts could still be published. However, 90% or more of studies are published within 4 years of the meeting [21][22][23]. Although some may question the validity of peer review as the gold standard of research quality [20], scientific peer review remains the standard by which the quality of science is assessed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study of abstracts not published at a scientific meeting reported researchers whose abstracts were rejected by a scientific meeting were more likely to believe a journal would reject their full manuscript [26]. Other research has suggested the major reason for nonpublication of research is nonsubmission [22]. Researchers, and principal investigators in particular, have a responsibility to their patients and to their specialty to push their projects to completion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

DeMola

Hill

Rogers

et al. 2008

Clin Orthop Relat Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many shoulder and elbow abstracts presented at the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) annual meeting are cited in the orthopaedic literature or are used to guide orthopaedic practice, but not all of these abstracts are submitted, survive peer review, or eventually are published. Presuming unpublished works have not been scientifically confirmed, one could question whether it is academically responsible to cite abstracts presented at the AAOS before they are peer-reviewed and published. To partly address this issue we determined the peer-reviewed publication rate for 558 abstracts (233 papers and 325 posters) presented at the shoulder and elbow sessions of the AAOS from 1999 to 2004. In April 2007, we searched the computerized database MEDLINE 1 and PubMed 1 for published articles based on these abstracts. We examined the published articles to assess publication rate, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors, and change in conclusions of abstracts. The overall publication rate in peer-reviewed journals was 58% (321 of 558), similar to other orthopaedic meetings and medical disciplines. We believe it is unacceptable to cite shoulder and elbow abstracts submitted to the AAOS because only slightly more than ½ (58%) of them are authenticated scientifically.

show abstract

“…Only 24.1% of abstracts originally presented at the Montreal conference appeared in a medical journal in the following 36 months. In comparison, the literature of other subspecialties reported an abstract publication rate that ranged from 25% to 69%, with a collective average of 47.24% [2][3][4][5][6].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies, of various specialties, have described the publication rates of abstracts presented at national meetings. Publication rates ranged from 34% to 69% (Table 1) [1][2][3][4][5]. A study done by Gorman et al in 1990 revealed a publication rate of 35.7% for 269 abstracts presented during the 1984 and 1986 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology [6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication of abstracts presented at 2001 NACCT

Smollin

Nelson

2006

J. Med. Toxicol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The timely and formal publication of material presented as abstracts at national meetings is critical to the dissemination of new information to the medical community. Without formal publication in peer reviewed medical journals, new scientific ideas remain inaccessible to most clinicians. Several studies, of various specialties, have described the publication rates of abstracts presented at national meetings. Publication rates ranged from 34% to 69% ( [6]. The publication rate of toxicology abstracts was lower than rates of publication for Cardiology, Surgery and Ambulatory Pediatric societies. We designed a retrospective study to revisit the issue of publication rates of abstracts presented at a recent national toxicology conference. Our hypothesis was that the rate of publication for toxicology abstracts would be similar to those for other subspecialties. In addition, we attempted to determine whether or not readily identifiable characteristics could predict a greater likelihood of publication. MATERIALS AND METHODSIn June of 2004, we retrospectively reviewed all 237 abstracts from the 2001 North American Conference of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT) that took place in Montreal. Abstracts were first classified according to methodology and content ( Table 2 and Table 3 provide a description of the classification system). Two investigators independently classified each abstract. Where there was a disagreement on classification, the abstract in question was reread by both investigators in an attempt to reach a consensus. If a consensus could not be reached, the abstract was classified as "other." The timely and formal publication of material presented as abstracts at national meetings is critical to the dissemination of new information to the medical community. We designed a retrospective study to evaluate the publication rates of abstracts presented at a recent national toxicology conference. In addition, we attempted to determine whether readily identifiable characteristics could predict a greater likelihood of publication.Methods: In June of 2004, we reviewed 237 abstracts from the 2001 North American Congress of Clinical Toxicology (NACCT). Abstracts were classified according to methodology and content. We then searched Medline, using PubMed, to determine the publication of each abstract.Results: Fifty-seven of 237 abstracts (24.1%) were subsequently published in peer reviewed journals. There was no statistically significant difference in the rate of publication when abstracts were categorized with respect to methodology. When categorized with respect to content, abstracts related to natural toxins had a higher publication rate (41.2%; p < 0.05).Conclusions: Three years after presenting abstracts at the 2001 NACCT meeting, the majority of abstracts remain unpublished. This is a lower rate than noted by other specialty medical societies.

show abstract

Publication rates of scientific papers presented at the Otorhinolarygological Research Society meetings

Cited by 75 publications

References 10 publications

Presentation and Publication Rates among Women and Men at AAO-HNS Meetings

Presentation and Publication Rates among Women and Men at AAO-HNS Meetings

Publication Rate of Abstracts Presented at the Shoulder and Elbow Session of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery

Publication of abstracts presented at 2001 NACCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About