 |
|
Unpublished Research From a Medical Specialty Meeting
Why Investigators Fail to Publish
Ellen J. Weber, MD;
Michael L. Callaham, MD;
Robert L. Wears, MD;
Christopher Barton, MD;
Gary Young, MD
JAMA. 1998;280:257-259.
Context.— It is not known whether peer review of research abstracts submitted to scientific meetings influences subsequent attempts at publication.
Objective.— To determine why research submitted to a scientific meeting is not subsequently published. We hypothesized that authors of abstracts rejected by a meeting are less likely to pursue publication than those whose abstracts are accepted, regardless of research quality.
Design and Participants.— Blinded review of abstracts submitted to a medical specialty meeting in 1991 and not published as full manuscripts within 5 years. In 1996, authors of 266 unpublished studies were asked to complete questionnaires.
Main Outcome Measures.— Submission of a full manuscript to a journal between 1991 and 1996; failure to submit a manuscript to a journal because the investigator believed it would not be accepted for publication.
Results.— A total of 223 (84%) of the unpublished investigators returned the questionnaire. Only 44 (20%) had submitted manuscripts to a journal. Manuscript submission was not associated with abstract quality (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.64), positive results (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57), or other study characteristics. Having an abstract accepted for presentation at the meeting weakly predicted submission of a manuscript to a journal (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84-4.10). Authors of accepted abstracts were significantly less likely to believe a journal would not publish their manuscript than were authors of rejected abstracts (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.61).
Conclusions.— Study characteristics do not predict attempts to publish research submitted to a scientific meeting. Investigators whose research is rejected by a meeting are pessimistic about chances for publication and may make less effort to publish.
From the Division of Emergency Medicine (Drs Weber, Callaham, and Young), University of California, San Francisco; the Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Florida Health Center, Jacksonville (Dr Wears); the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill (Dr Barton); and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Highland Hospital, Alameda County Medical Center, Oakland, Calif (Dr Young). Dr Young is now with Sacred Heart Medical Center, Eugene, Ore.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts
Hopewell et al.
Journal of Information Science 2008;34:162-173.
ABSTRACT
Publication Bias in Orthopaedic Research: An Analysis of Scientific Factors Associated with Publication in The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume)
Okike et al.
JBJS 2008;90:595-601.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Abstract-to-publication ratio for papers presented at scientific meetings: a quality marker for UK emergency medicine research
Macmillan et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2007;24:425-426.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Reducing Publication Bias Through Trial Registration
Abaid et al.
Obstet Gynecol 2007;109:1434-1437.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence of publication bias in reporting acute stroke clinical trials.
Liebeskind et al.
Neurology 2006;67:973-979.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Publication of Material Presented at Radiologic Meetings: Authors' Country and International Collaboration
Miguel-Dasit et al.
Radiology 2006;239:521-528.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Subsequent Publication of Orally Presented Original Studies within 5 Years after 1995 RSNA Scientific Assembly
Arrive et al.
Radiology 2004;232:101-106.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Does Presentation Format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' Annual Meeting Predict Subsequent Publication?
Carroll et al.
Pediatrics 2003;112:1238-1241.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Factors Associated With Failure to Publish Large Randomized Trials Presented at an Oncology Meeting
Krzyzanowska et al.
JAMA 2003;290:495-501.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Barriers to Full-Text Publication Following Presentation of Abstracts at Annual Orthopaedic Meetings
Sprague et al.
JBJS 2003;85:158-163.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Journal Prestige, Publication Bias, and Other Characteristics Associated With Citation of Published Studies in Peer-Reviewed Journals
Callaham et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2847-2850.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Media Coverage of Scientific Meetings: Too Much, Too Soon?
Schwartz et al.
JAMA 2002;287:2859-2863.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications
Bhandari et al.
JBJS 2002;84:615-621.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Evidence on peer review---scientific quality control or smokescreen?
Goldbeck-Wood
BMJ 1999;318:44-45.
FULL TEXT
Peer Review in Prague
Rennie
JAMA 1998;280:214-215.
FULL TEXT
Positive-Outcome Bias and Other Limitations in the Outcome of Research Abstracts Submitted to a Scientific Meeting
Callaham et al.
JAMA 1998;280:254-257.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
