Abstracts accepted for publication only
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7162356 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of a conference abstract is to summarize the main points of a research-related report that will be presented at an academic conference. However, some conferences accept and publish abstracts without results, which is contrary to the basic idea of a conference abstract as a dissemination tool. A conference abstract without results included is called a "promissory abstract". This study aimed to analyze the frequency and characteristics of promissory conference abstracts, i.e. abstracts submitted without results, accepted at Cochrane Colloquia.MethodsWe analyzed 8297 conference abstracts accepted at 25 Cochrane Colloquia, organized in 1994-2020, which were publicly available on the website of the Cochrane Library. Two authors screened abstracts to identify promissory abstracts. We extracted characteristics of promissory abstracts.ResultsAmong abstracts accepted for Cochrane Colloquia, 8.7% were promissory; 475 (66%) were accepted as poster presentations, 241 (34%) as oral presentations and 1 as a workshop. The median number of authors in promissory abstracts was 4 (interquartile range: 3 to 6 authors). In 245 (34%) promissory abstracts, affiliations of authors were not reported. The authors were most commonly affiliated with the following countries: UK (472; 36%), Canada (N = 123; 26%), China (N = 76; 16%), United States (N = 66; 14%) and Australia (N = 53; 11%). There were 512 (71%) promissory abstracts in which study design was not reported.ConclusionPromissory abstracts were commonly accepted at Cochrane Colloquia. Such abstracts deserve further attention, as they are detrimental in terms of the dissemination of new knowledge presented at a conference. Conference organizers could ask authors to update the abstract results subsequently to enable the dissemination of information presented at a conference.
| S-EPMC8573995 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Abstract presentations at professional meetings provide a medium for disseminating the findings of scholarly activity. Rates of abstract publication from various biomedical disciplines have been evaluated, with pharmacy noted to be lower than other specialties. Previous research on pharmacy abstract publication rates was conducted for a limited number of professional meetings but has not been assessed using Google Scholar. OBJECTIVE: To determine the full publication rate of abstracts presented at the 2005 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Spring and Annual Meetings, American Pharmacists Association (APhA) Annual Meeting, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings. METHODS: Publication status was assessed for abstracts presented during the 2005 ACCP Spring and Annual Meetings, APhA Annual Meeting, and ASHP Summer and Midyear Clinical Meetings using PubMed and Google Scholar. Data collected included abstract category, study category, practice site, database(s) in which publication appeared, time in months to publication, publication type, and journal of publication. RESULTS: Evaluation of 2,000 abstracts presented in 2005 revealed an overall full publication rate of 19.8% (n = 384). Nearly all pharmacy abstracts were published as manuscripts (98.4%; n=378) and indexed in PubMed and Google Scholar (91.9%; n = 353), although a significant percentage were indexed in Google Scholar only (7.8%; n = 30). The mean time to full publication was 16.8 months (SD ±11.9 months). CONCLUSIONS: Results were consistent with previously reported full publication rates of abstracts from pharmacy association meetings, indicating that abstracts presented at pharmacy meetings continue to have a lower full publication rate than other health disciplines.
| S-EPMC3839506 | biostudies-other
Project description:Abstracts submitted to meetings are subject to less rigorous peer review than full-text manuscripts. This study aimed to explore the publication outcome of abstracts presented at the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) annual meeting.Abstracts presented at the 2008 AAO meeting were analyzed. Each presented abstract was sought via PubMed to identify if it had been published as a full-text manuscript. The publication outcome, journal impact factor (IF), and time to publication were recorded.A total of 690 abstracts were reviewed, of which 39.1% were subsequently published. They were published in journals with a median IF of 2.9 (range 0-7.2) and a median publication time of 426 days (range 0-2,133 days). A quarter were published in the journal Ophthalmology, with a shorter time to publication (median 282 vs. 534 days, p=0.003). Oral presentations were more likely to be published than poster presentations (57.8% vs. 35.9%, p<0.001) and in journals with higher IFs (3.2 vs. 2.8, p=0.02). Abstracts describing rare diseases had higher publication rates (49.4% vs. 38.0%, p=0.04) and were published in higher IF journals (3.7 vs. 2.9, p=0.03), within a shorter period of time (358 vs. 428 days, p=0.03). In multivariate analysis, affiliation with an institute located in the United States (p=0.002), abstracts describing rare diseases (p=0.03), and funded studies (p=0.03) were associated with publication in higher IF journals.Almost 40% of abstracts were published. Factors that correlated with publication in journals with higher IF were a focus on rare diseases, affiliation with a US institute, and funding.
| S-EPMC5764594 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10905502 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC5389908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the fate of manuscripts rejected by Occupational and Environmental Medicine (OEM). METHODS:A Medline search was conducted, up to March 2001, to find out whether and where articles submitted to OEM in 1995, 1996, and 1997, but not accepted for publication, were published. The articles were matched by authors and title, sometimes using the abstract to help decide whether the published article was the one that had been previously submitted to OEM. RESULTS:Out of 405 manuscripts rejected (44% of those submitted), 218 articles (54%) were traced in 72 different journals, with more than half being published in seven other major journals dealing with occupational and environmental health (rather than in specialty journals). Most papers were published within 2 years of their initial submission to OEM. Only a small proportion (10%) were published in a journal with a higher impact factor than OEM (1.96 in 1999). CONCLUSION:More than half the articles rejected by OEM found their way into the scientific literature covered by Medline. This figure is comparable with the few available data from other journals. It would be interesting to know the fate of articles published by OEM before they were submitted to our journal.
| S-EPMC1740190 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPresentations at scientific conferences are an important method of research dissemination, with abstracts often used to inform clinical practice. Abstract to publication ratio is a commonly used tool for determining meeting quality. The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate for abstracts presented at the Australian Orthopaedic Association Annual Scientific Meeting (AOA ASM) between 2012 and 2015 inclusive and identify reasons for non-publication.MethodsMEDLINE, PubMed and Google Scholar were searched to determine whether each abstract presented at AOA ASMs between 2012 and 2015 was associated with a full text publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Where a publication could not be located, the presenter was contacted to confirm the reason for non-publication.ResultsA total of 1130 abstracts were submitted (951 oral and 179 posters), and 573 resulted in full-text peer-reviewed publications (51%). The majority of publications (73%) were published within 2 years of presentation. There was no difference in likelihood of publication for oral presentations compared to posters, nor in the rate of publication across the 4 years of meetings. Common reasons for non-publication were lack of time (32%), publication considered low priority (27%) and journal rejections (22%).ConclusionThe overall publication rate for abstracts presented at the AOA ASM is 51%, which is an increase from the 1998 ASM (31%). This publication rate is higher than many similar Australian meetings and on par with other international orthopaedic and subspecialty meetings. Future research should investigate potential publication bias and methods to minimise barriers to publication.
| S-EPMC9303558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThis study sought to ascertain the publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the Medical Library Association (MLA) for the years of 2002 and 2003. The secondary objectives were to examine possible reasons for non-publication and factors influencing publication.MethodsA total of 442 abstracts from both meeting years, consisting of presented papers and posters, were examined. The 2 methods used to obtain a publication rate were literature searches and an online questionnaire sent to first authors. The questionnaire also asked abstract authors about reasons for non-publication and other factors that might have influenced their decisions about whether or not to submit the project for publication.ResultsThe overall publication rate from the survey was 26.5%, and the publication rate found via literature searching was 27.6%. The most common reason given for non-publication was time restrictions. Also notable was the large proportion of abstracts written by librarians working at universities and those having 25 or more years in the library profession.DiscussionPublication rates for abstracts presented at the Medical Library Association meetings for the years studied rank at the low end in comparison with other medical professional associations. Further research into factors affecting publication may reveal ways to increase this rate.
| S-EPMC2901010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVETo assess whether conference abstracts that report higher estimates of diagnostic accuracy are more likely to reach full-text publication in a peer-reviewed journal.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGWe identified abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies, presented between 2007 and 2010 at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) Annual Meeting. We extracted reported estimates of sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Between May and July 2015, we searched MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify corresponding full-text publications; if needed, we contacted abstract authors. Cox regression was performed to estimate associations with full-text publication, where sensitivity, specificity, and AUC were logit transformed, and DOR was log transformed.RESULTSA full-text publication was found for 226/399 (57%) included abstracts. There was no association between reported estimates of sensitivity and full-text publication (hazard ratio [HR] 1.09 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.98, 1.22]). The same applied to specificity (HR 1.00 [95% CI 0.88, 1.14]), AUC (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.75, 1.09]), and DOR (HR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94, 1.09]).CONCLUSIONAlmost half of the ARVO conference abstracts describing diagnostic accuracy studies did not reach full-text publication. Studies in abstracts that mentioned higher accuracy estimates were not more likely to be reported in a full-text publication.
| S-EPMC5148658 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Publication bias is the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on their direction or strength of findings. In this study, we investigated if publication bias was present in gastroenterological research by evaluating abstracts at Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Congresses from 2011 to 2013. Methods:We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate the published reports of research described in these abstracts. If a publication was not found, a second investigator searched to verify nonpublication. If abstract publication status remained undetermined, authors were contacted regarding reasons for nonpublication. For articles reaching publication, the P value, study design, time to publication, citation count, and journals in which the published report appeared were recorded. Results:Our study found that of 569 abstracts presented, 297 (52.2%) reported a P value. Of these, 254 (85.5%) contained P values supporting statistical significance. The abstracts reporting a statistically significant outcome were twice as likely to reach publication than abstracts with no significant findings (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.06-4.14]). Overall, 243 (42.7%) abstracts reached publication. The mean time to publication was 14 months and a median time of nine months. Conclusion:In conclusion, we found evidence for publication bias in gastroenterological research. Abstracts with significant P values had a higher probability of reaching publication. More than half of abstracts presented from 2011 to 2013 failed to reach publication. Readers should take these findings into consideration when reviewing medical literature.
| S-EPMC6016530 | biostudies-literature