From Meeting Presentation to Peer-Review Publication – a UK Review
Open Access
- 1 January 2006
- journal article
- Published by Royal College of Surgeons of England in The Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England
- Vol. 88 (1), 52-56
- https://doi.org/10.1308/003588406x83069
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Annual academic surgical meetings provide a forum for the discussion of research. For the wide-spread dissemination of this information, peer-reviewed publication is required. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of presentations which go on to publication from 4 UK-based surgical meetings. MATERIALS AND METHODS We determined whether a presentation had led to a successful publication using PubMed, a median of 28 months following each meeting. We compared the ASGBI publication rate with the meetings of the Vascular Surgical Society (VSSGBI), the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) and the British Transplantation Society (BTS). We also compared the median impact factor of journals used. RESULTS The ASGBI and BTS had a similar rate of presentations resulting in publication, with 35% and 36% at 2 years, respectively. The VSS had a significantly greater proportion of presentations resulting in publication (54% at 2 years; P = 0.004), whilst the ACPGBI had significant fewer (24% at 2 years; P = 0.006). There was no difference in the median impact factors of the journals used between the meetings (Kruskal Wallis P = 0.883). CONCLUSIONS There is a significant variation between meetings in terms of turning presentations into publications. However, the majority of abstracts have still not been fully published within 2 years of presentation at the meeting.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventionsCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2007
- The M.D.—Medical doctorate or mandatory doctorate?British Journal of Plastic Surgery, 2003
- United Kingdom research governance strategyBMJ, 2003
- More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic reviewBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2003
- Unfinished Business and Modernising Medical CareersBMJ, 2003
- Under-reporting of clinical trials is unethicalThe Lancet, 2003
- Barriers to Full-Text Publication Following Presentation of ... : JBJSThe Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery-American Volume, 2003
- Agreement of data in abstracts compared to full publicationsControlled Clinical Trials, 1998
- Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts: A Meta-analysisJAMA, 1994
- Are published manuscripts representative of the surgical meeting abstracts? An objective appraisalJournal of Pediatric Surgery, 1987