Publication outcome of abstracts submitted to the American Academy of Ophthalmology meeting

Abstract

ObjectiveAbstracts 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.MethodsAbstracts 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsAlmost 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.

Factors associated with the publication outcomes of paediatric proceedings presented at 2010‐2016 the International Associations for Dental Research annual meetings

“…In our results, researches with large sample size (≥500) were published earlier, which emphasized the importance of the choosing of sample size for a study. Our study also showed the influence of funding level on publication, consistent with earlier researches . On one hand, those funded researches have been evaluated in a rigorous manner by funding party at an early stage, to verify their quality and value.…”

“…Our study also showed the influence of funding level on publication, consistent with earlier researches. 13,18 On one hand, those funded researches have been evaluated in a rigorous manner by funding party at an early stage, to verify their quality and value. On the other hand, authors could carry out their research programme more smoothly with ample funds supported.…”

The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates

“…The majority of first authors were from North America (43.9%, n=764), which showed a significant 5 year conversion rate of 50.5% (n=386), slightly lower than Oceania (57.1%, n=24). However, as recently described by Mimouni M and colleagues analyzing the fate of the 2008 AAO abstracts, 14 the North American abstracts were associated with the highest median IF of publication (3.40). As already suggested, 14 this might be due to larger availability of resources for US researchers or to the language barrier.…”

“…Literature investigated several factors potentially associated with publication including: reporting only positive results and data from randomized controlled trials, large sample size, oral presentation, basic science, higher quality, multicentricity, pharmaceutical funding and accademic affiliation. 1,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26] In the present study, conference, presentation type and topic all showed to be associated with publication rates. (Table 4) In fact, the ARVO meeting was associated with the highest 2-year (36.1%) and 5-year (51.9%) publication rates; the abstracts presented as paper (oral) presentation had the highest 2-year (44.5%) and 5-year (60.5%) publication rates; and Basic science had the highest 5 year (52.1%) publication rates.…”

“…However, limited and heterogeneous information is available on publication rates of presented abstracts in the field of ophthalmology. [11][12][13][14][15][16] The primary aim of this study was to investigate publication rates of abstracts presented at five A total of 20% of all free papers and posters presented at each conference was randomly selected and reviewed. The selection was made manually, counting one in five consecutive abstracts (i.e.…”