Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to An Internal Medicine National Meeting: Is It a Predictor of Future Publication?

Scholcoff, Cecilia; Sanghani, P.; Jackson, Wilkins; Egloff, Heidi; Sawatsky, Adam P.; Jackson, Jeffrey L.

doi:10.1007/s11606-018-4416-8

J GEN INTERN MED

2018

DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4416-8

|View full text |Cite

Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to An Internal Medicine National Meeting: Is It a Predictor of Future Publication?

Cecilia Scholcoff

P. Sanghani

Wilkins Jackson

et al.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2018

2022

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite1

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…5 Several studies have shown that reviewer ratings have low inter-rater reliability and only a limited ability to predict the eventual impact of articles. [6][7][8] We at JGIM use a three-stage process. First, the co-editors in chief evaluate submissions for fit and quality.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review at JGIM

Jackson¹,

Asch

Bates

2018

J GEN INTERN MED

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer Review at JGIM

Jackson¹,

Asch

Bates

2018

J GEN INTERN MED

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Charting the course from abstract to published article

Hallan

Nguyen

Liang

et al. 2022

Journal of Neurosurgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors’ objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results. METHODS The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results. RESULTS Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%). CONCLUSIONS Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to An Internal Medicine National Meeting: Is It a Predictor of Future Publication?

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

Peer Review at JGIM

Peer Review at JGIM

Charting the course from abstract to published article

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About