From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Aims
Through a 4-year follow-up of the abstracts submitted to the European Society of Cardiology Congress in 2006, we aimed at identifying factors predicting high-quality research, appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes, and thereby revealing potential ways to improve future research, peer review, and editorial work. METHODS AND RESULTS All abstracts submitted in 2006 were assessed for acceptance, presentation format, and average reviewer rating. Accepted and rejected studies were followed for 4 years. Multivariate regression analyses of a representative selection of 10% of all abstracts (n= 1002) were performed to identify factors predicting acceptance, subsequent publication, and citation. A total of 10 020 abstracts were submitted, 3104 (31%) were accepted for poster, and 701 (7%) for oral presentation. At Congress level, basic research, a patient number ≥ 100, and prospective study design were identified as independent predictors of acceptance. These factors differed from those predicting full-text publication, which included academic affiliation. The single parameter predicting frequent citation was study design with randomized controlled trials reaching the highest citation rates. The publication rate of accepted studies was 38%, whereas only 24% of rejected studies were published. Among published studies, those accepted at the Congress received higher citation rates than rejected ones.Conclusions
Research of high quality was determined by study design and largely identified at Congress level through blinded peer review. The scientometric follow-up revealed a marked disparity between predictors of full-text publication and those predicting citation or acceptance at the Congress.
SUBMITTER: Winnik S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3530902 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:To explore influences of co-investigators on the successful publication of a pharmacy residency project.We analyzed published and non-published research presented at a regional pharmacy conference. Abstracts were matched 1:1 based on state and abstract year. We assessed university affiliation, number, degree, and H-Index of co-investigators on the abstract. Descriptive and inferential analyses were used to identify variables associated with resident publication.University-affiliated programs (p=0.015), highest H-Index of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.002), and positive H-Index (≥1) of a non-physician co-investigator (p=0.017) were significant predictors of resident publication on univariate analyses. There were no differences in the number of co-investigators (p=0.051), projects with physician co-investigators (p=1.000), or projects with Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) or Master of Science (MS) co-investigators (p=0.536) between published and non-published projects. Multivariate analysis found that the highest H-index of non-physician co-investigator remained significant as a predictor to resident publication (odds ratio (OR) 1.09, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 1.01-1.17).The quality of co-investigators, as measured by an increasing H-Index, is associated with the successful publication of residency projects. More emphasis may need to be placed on resident research co-investigator selection and training to prepare pharmacy residents for research and scholarly activity.
| S-EPMC5499349 | biostudies-other
Project description:Journal impact factors have become an important criterion to judge the quality of scientific publications over the years, influencing the evaluation of institutions and individual researchers worldwide. However, they are also subject to a number of criticisms. Here we point out that the calculation of a journal's impact factor is mainly based on the date of publication of its articles in print form, despite the fact that most journals now make their articles available online before that date. We analyze 61 neuroscience journals and show that delays between online and print publication of articles increased steadily over the last decade. Importantly, such a practice varies widely among journals, as some of them have no delays, while for others this period is longer than a year. Using a modified impact factor based on online rather than print publication dates, we demonstrate that online-to-print delays can artificially raise a journal's impact factor, and that this inflation is greater for longer publication lags. We also show that correcting the effect of publication delay on impact factors changes journal rankings based on this metric. We thus suggest that indexing of articles in citation databases and calculation of citation metrics should be based on the date of an article's online appearance, rather than on that of its publication in print.
| S-EPMC3534064 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesReview abstracts presented at the Combined Otolaryngology Society Meeting (COSM) to determine subsequent publication and identify abstract features predictive of publication in high impact journals.MethodsA selection of abstracts accepted in the 2015 COSM scientific programs were retrospectively reviewed. MEDLINE searches via PubMed and Google Scholar were performed to determine publication rates. The Journal of Citation Reports was used to determine impact factors for published abstracts. Binomial regression analyses were used to identify factors related to publication in high impact journals.Results62.4% of reviewed abstracts (n = 623) were subsequently published, with a mean publication time of 14 ± 12 months. Abstract features predictive of publication were basic science type, other science type, prospective studies, multi-institutional involvement, and presentation at the American Laryngologic Association and American Otologic Society meetings. Based on Wald score, podium presentation was found to have the biggest effect on publication. Factors positively associated with publication in high impact (impact factor > 2.272) journals were increased author number and sample size.ConclusionsOverall publication rate of abstracts selected for presentation at COSM in 2015 was on the higher end of previously reported otolaryngology meetings. Abstracts detailing basic science, other science, prospective and multi-institutional studies were more likely to lead to future publication. Additionally, increased number of authors and sample size lead to publication in higher impact journals.Level of evidenceN/A.
| S-EPMC8356865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many publications on COVID-19 were released on preprint servers such as medRxiv and bioRxiv. It is unknown how reliable these preprints are, and which ones will eventually be published in scientific journals. In this study, we use crowdsourced human forecasts to predict publication outcomes and future citation counts for a sample of 400 preprints with high Altmetric score. Most of these preprints were published within 1 year of upload on a preprint server (70%), with a considerable fraction (45%) appearing in a high-impact journal with a journal impact factor of at least 10. On average, the preprints received 162 citations within the first year. We found that forecasters can predict if preprints will be published after 1 year and if the publishing journal has high impact. Forecasts are also informative with respect to Google Scholar citations within 1 year of upload on a preprint server. For both types of assessment, we found statistically significant positive correlations between forecasts and observed outcomes. While the forecasts can help to provide a preliminary assessment of preprints at a faster pace than traditional peer-review, it remains to be investigated if such an assessment is suited to identify methodological problems in preprints.
| S-EPMC9515639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo examine the trends between various categories of institutions with their respective published orthopaedic sports medicine content and to determine the publication output and citation rate from the 25 highest-ranked medical schools compared with lower-ranked institutions.MethodsPublications between 2015 and 2019 from the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Arthroscopy were categorized into university/university affiliated hospitals, non-university affiliated teaching hospitals, public/semi-government research institutes, nonprofit research institutes, private sector institutions, government institutions, and other institutions. Citation rates were collected from PubMed for the first and corresponding author. Similarly, corresponding authors were stratified by U.S. News and World Report 2021 medical school research rankings.ResultsOf the 12,152 publications identified, 5,044 publications met the inclusion criteria. Nonprofit research institutions garnered the greatest number of citations on average (6.44 based on first author, SD 8.83, n = 214; 6.62 based on corresponding author, SD 9.65, n = 208; P < .001), while university/university-affiliated hospitals produced the majority of published articles (77.0% based on first author, 76.8% based on corresponding author), but had lower average citation rates (4.48 based on first author, SD 6.67, n = 3,886; 4.44 based on corresponding author, SD 6.55, n = 3,873; P < .001). Furthermore, of 1953 medical school publications, the top 25 accounted for 53.1% of publications; however, there was no statistical difference between their citation rates and those of lower rankings (P = 0.47).ConclusionsPublications are cited at different rates, depending on their institution of origin. In addition, high-ranking medical schools produce a disproportionately greater output of publications than lower-ranking schools, but there is no statistically significant difference in citation rates on an individual publication basis.Clinical relevanceKnowing how an institution's ranking influences publication and citation rates can help us understand bias in the scientific literature.
| S-EPMC9042742 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications.DesignCitation analysis.SettingCanada.ParticipantsA total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers.Main outcome measuresThe 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine.ResultsOn average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy).ConclusionCanada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.
| S-EPMC11280635 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPublication records and citation indices often are used to evaluate academic performance. For this reason, obtaining or computing them accurately is important. This can be difficult, largely due to a lack of complete knowledge of an individual's publication list and/or lack of time available to manually obtain or construct the publication-citation record. While online publication search engines have somewhat addressed these problems, using raw search results can yield inaccurate estimates of publication-citation records and citation indices.MethodologyIn this paper, we present a new, automated method that produces estimates of an individual's publication-citation record from an individual's name and a set of domain-specific vocabulary that may occur in the individual's publication titles. Because this vocabulary can be harvested directly from a research web page or online (partial) publication list, our method delivers an easy way to obtain estimates of a publication-citation record and the relevant citation indices. Our method works by applying a series of stringent name and content filters to the raw publication search results returned by an online publication search engine. In this paper, our method is run using Google Scholar, but the underlying filters can be easily applied to any existing publication search engine. When compared against a manually constructed data set of individuals and their publication-citation records, our method provides significant improvements over raw search results. The estimated publication-citation records returned by our method have an average sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 72% (in contrast to raw search result specificity of less than 10%). When citation indices are computed using these records, the estimated indices are within of the true value 10%, compared to raw search results which have overestimates of, on average, 75%.ConclusionsThese results confirm that our method provides significantly improved estimates over raw search results, and these can either be used directly for large-scale (departmental or university) analysis or further refined manually to quickly give accurate publication-citation records.
| S-EPMC2924380 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundArticles whose authors have supplemented subscription-based access to the publisher's version by self-archiving their own final draft to make it accessible free for all on the web ("Open Access", OA) are cited significantly more than articles in the same journal and year that have not been made OA. Some have suggested that this "OA Advantage" may not be causal but just a self-selection bias, because authors preferentially make higher-quality articles OA. To test this we compared self-selective self-archiving with mandatory self-archiving for a sample of 27,197 articles published 2002-2006 in 1,984 journals. METHDOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The OA Advantage proved just as high for both. Logistic regression analysis showed that the advantage is independent of other correlates of citations (article age; journal impact factor; number of co-authors, references or pages; field; article type; or country) and highest for the most highly cited articles. The OA Advantage is real, independent and causal, but skewed. Its size is indeed correlated with quality, just as citations themselves are (the top 20% of articles receive about 80% of all citations).Conclusions/significanceThe OA advantage is greater for the more citable articles, not because of a quality bias from authors self-selecting what to make OA, but because of a quality advantage, from users self-selecting what to use and cite, freed by OA from the constraints of selective accessibility to subscribers only. It is hoped that these findings will help motivate the adoption of OA self-archiving mandates by universities, research institutions and research funders.
| S-EPMC2956678 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Reports have suggested that academic medicine may be in decline within the UK. Further evidence suggests that rates of subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at major scientific meetings are low and may be declining. We have compared the publication rates of abstracts presented at meetings of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) between 1995 and 2005 and examined factors associated with full paper publication. Methods: Abstracts presented at BSG meetings in 1995 and 2005 were assessed by cross-referencing with multiple databases. Abstract characteristics associated with publication were analysed. Results: There were no differences in overall publication rates, impact factors or time to publication between 1995 and 2005. Overall, basic-science abstracts were twice as likely to achieve full publication than non-basic science. There was a significant fall in the publication rates for case series and audits, and significantly increased rates for fundamental/basic-science abstracts over the study period. There were non-significant increases in publication rates for controlled trials and systematic reviews. In general, publication rates for all predominantly clinically orientated abstracts reduced between the two periods with the most notable fall occurring in nutrition. Conclusions: There was no evidence of a decline in overall abstract publication rates between 1995 and 2005. There seemed to be trend for increased publication rates of abstracts using perceived high-quality study methodologies with a corresponding decrease in those with lower quality methods. The proportion of basic-science abstracts is likely to be a determinant of overall full publication rates following scientific meetings.
| S-EPMC3752733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.ResultsThe mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ± 29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ± 4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R(2) = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (? 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (? 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.ConclusionsThe JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.
| S-EPMC3847500 | biostudies-literature