The publication rate of presented abstracts at a congress and determining its publication factor

Abstract

Background/Aim: Congresses, scientific fairs on an academic platform, are held in numerous disciplines all over the world and bring physicians together. Through these congresses, the physicians can follow the latest developments in their profession and present their work. Many researchers first present their work in a congress, then update their work in the light of the feedbacks and publish them in a peer-reviewed journal. Although many oral and poster presentations are made in scientific congresses, a small portion are finally published in a peer-reviewed journal. This may be because the effort spent in preparing an abstract is much less than that spent during the preparation of an entire manuscript. However, the publication of a presentation in a peer-reviewed journal is a gold standard factor showing the quality of research and that it is worthy of publication. More detailed congress abstract evaluation criteria and their proximity to the procedures involved during the journal acceptance stage will likely enhance the publication rate. The purpose of this study was to perform a detailed evaluation of presentations at congresses held by the European Society of Trauma and Emergency Surgery (ESTES) in 2013, 2014, 2015 and determine their rates of publication in peer-reviewed journals. Methods: The booklets for three consecutive annual ESTES congresses (2013, 2014, 2015) containing presented papers were accessed online. All oral and poster presentations were analyzed, and published studies in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed in Google Scholar database until 2019 were identified. These published studies were then analyzed and used to determine the Publication Factor for Congress (PFC) for these congresses. Results: The total number of presentations at ESTES congresses in 2013-2015 was 1746, of which 878 were oral (50.2%) and 868 (49.8%) were in poster form. 450 (25.7%) of these were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals that are indexed in Google Scholar database. 148 of the published papers (32.9%) were based on poster presentations, and 302 (67.1%) were from oral presentations. Conclusion: The publication rate of oral and poster presentations presented at the 2013-2015 ESTES congresses from the date of the congress to 2019 was 25.7%. Oral presentations were published more than poster presentations. It suggests that the papers with high publication potential have a high tendency to be presented as oral presentations by the authors. Determination of publication rates and publication factor for a congress at specific intervals may increase the motivation of authors at the participation and submission stages and strengthen the brand value.

Keywords

• Congress
• Publication factor
• Trauma
• Emergency
• Publication

References

1. 1. Koçak Z. Precise and Immediate Action against Predatory Conferences. Balkan Med J. 2019 Dec 20;37(1):1-2. doi: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2020.2020.1.001
2. 2. Von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramer MR. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Jul 10; 3: 12. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-3-12.
3. 3. Bydder S, Marion K, Taylor M, Semmens J. Assessment of abstracts submitted to the annual scientific meeting of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists. Australas Radiol. 2006 Aug;50(4):355-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1673.2006.01599.x
4. 4. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA. 2003 Jul 23;290(4):495-501. doi: 10. 1001/jama.290.4.495.
5. 5. Nguyen V, Tornetta III P, Bkaric M. Publication rates for the scientific sessions of the OTA. Orthopaedic trauma association. J Orthop Traumatol. Sep-Oct 1998;12(7):457-9; discussion 456. doi: 10.1097/00005131- 199809000 -00004.
6. 6. Yentis SM, Campbell FA, Lerman J. Publication of abstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can J Anaesth. 1993 Jul;40(7):632-4. doi: 10. 1007/BF03009700.
7. 7. De Meijer VE, Knops SP, van Dongen JA, Eyck BM, Vles WJ. The fate of research abstracts submitted to a national surgical conference: a cross-sectional study to assess scientific impact. Am J Surg. 2016 Jan;211(1):166-71. doi: 10. 1016/j.amjsurg.2015.06.017.
8. 8. Weber EJ, Callaham ML, Wears RL, Barton C, Young G. Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):257-9. doi: 10. 1001/jama.280.3.257.

9. 9. Song F, Loke Y, Hooper L. Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators. PLoS One. 2014 Oct 15;9(10):e110418. doi: 10. 1371/journal. pone.0110418.
10. 10. Dickersin K, Min Y, Meinert CL. Factors influencing publication of research results: follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA 1992;267:374–8. doi: 10. 1001/jama.1992. 03480030052036
11. 11. Chalmers I. Underreporting research is scientific misconduct. JAMA. 1990 Mar 9;263(10):1405-8. doi: 10. 1001/jama.1990. 03440100121018
12. 12. Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:MR000005. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000005.pub3
13. 13. Dahllöf G, Wondimu B, Maniere MC. Subsequent publication of abstracts presented at the International Association of Paediatric Dentistry meetings. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008 Mar;18(2):91-7. doi: 10. 1111/j.1365-263X. 2007. 00898.x.
14. 14. Lee DJ, Yuan JC, Prasad S, Ricardo Barao VA, Shyamsunder N, Sukotjo C. Analysis of abstracts presented at the prosthodontic research section of IADR General Sessions 2004-2005: demographics, publication rates, and factors contributing to publication. J Prosthodont. 2012 Apr;21(3):225-31. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00792.x.
15. 15. Ng L, Hersey K, Fleshner N. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the American Urological Association. BJU Int. 2004 Jul;94(1):79-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2004.04905.x.
16. 16. Oktay V, Çalpar Çıralı İ, Serin E, Sansoy V. A descriptive analysis of abstracts presented at the Turkish National Cardiology Congresses between 2011 and 2015. Anatol J Cardiol. 2018 Jul;20(1):16-20. doi: 10.14744/AnatolJCardiol.2018.94803.
17. 17. Kalkan A, Kose O, Bilir O, Ersunan G, Ozel D, Guler F. Publication rate of abstracts presented at the emergency medicine congresses held by the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) in 2011 and 2012. Emerg Med J. 2015 Sep;32(9):728-32. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2014-204063.
18. 18. De Simone B, Ansaloni L, Kelly MD, Coccolini F, Sartelli M, Di Saverio S, Pisano M, Cervellin G, Baiocchi G, Catena F. The Congress Impact Factor: A proposal from board members of the World Society of Emergency Surgeons.it (WSES) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC). F1000Res. 2018 Aug 3;7:1185. doi: 10.12688/f1000research. 15429.2.