Publication rate of abstracts presented at the annual meeting of the orthopaedic research society

Abstract

Although the timely conveyance of information at national meetings like those of the Orthopaedic Research Society is critical to the dissemination of new scientific research, the ultimate goal of most researchers is to publish work in peer-reviewed journals referenced in Medline. All of the abstracts that were presented at the podium at the 1991, 1992, and 1993 annual meetings of the Orthopaedic Research Society and printed in the appropriate yearly transactions were included in this study (n=888,296 per year). A detailed computerized Medline search of each author on the abstract and the appropriate keywords from the title was performed until a publication was found; otherwise, the abstract was excluded. The database was searched through June 30, 1997. A total of 463 (52%) of the abstracts were published by July 1, 1997. The percentages for each individual year were similar: 148 (50%) were published in 1991, 162 (55%) in 1992, and 153 (52%) in 1993. Publication of the majority of these papers (93.1%, 431 of 463) occurred within 4 years of the respective meeting. The Journal of Orthopaedic Research published the majority of these papers (17.5%), followed by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American), the Journal of Biomechanics, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, and Spine (each 5.2%). No significant differences in the rate of publication were observed between papers of 10 broad subject categories (p=0.103). These results are similar to those from other basic science meetings and to the recently reported results for the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

Enablers and disablers allowing trainees' abstracts to proceed to full manuscripts: lessons from a large neonatal training program

“…Not all abstracts are converted into full manuscript publications, and the rate of conversion ranges from 11 to 78%. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Previous reports have shown that statistically positive results, [12][13][14][15][16][17] acceptance at major conferences, 7,12,13,18,19 oral presentations at conferences, 9,[20][21][22][23] basic science research 11,15,20 and randomized controlled trials 1,15,24 are likely enabling factors for this conversion. Authors have reported that lack of time, difficulty with co-authors, low priority for publication and methodological limitation are the main disabling factors for successful publication.…”

Publication rates of presentations at annual scientific meetings of turkish neurosurgical society

“…Publication rates of 11-78% were mentioned in these studies (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)20,22,23,25,26). Specifically, publication rate of presentations of the 1996 Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons was 34% (1).…”

Do peer-reviewed journal papers result from meeting abstracts of the Biennial Conference on the Biology of Marine Mammals?

“…Some previous studies have used much more stringent rules for determining subsequent publication. In the Daluiski et al, 18 Gorman and Oderda 27 and Hamlet et al 19 studies, if the information in the presentation abstract did not match almost exactly that of a published paper, then the abstract was not counted as leading to a full publication. However, because the interaction and input essential to the conference venue can have a substantive impact on the transition from presentation to publication, this study acknowledges papers that match the presentation abstracts in substantive information found in each of these four areas: study species, study area, study time period, and methodology.…”

“…5,8,12,[17][18][19][20][21]24,26,27 Because of time involved in searching 6 databases for 849 abstracts from the 2 biennial conferences (5,094 separate searches), this study was limited to a 50% randomly selected sample. The resulting confidence limits were deemed adequate for the purposes of this paper.…”

“…31 (Table 7 (1978-9/98). Searches were run for years prior to each of the conference dates because Cheng et al, 10 Daluiski et al, 18 Maxwell,17 Scherer et al 30 and others found that some abstracts in their studies were published as peer-reviewed papers during or prior to the conference month.…”