Editorial: Presentation to publication

Abstract

Patel et al.1 describe the subsequent publication rates of 3827 abstracts that were presented at the 2003, 2004, and 2005 annual meetings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and American Association of Neurological Surgeons. Overall, approximately 1 in 3 abstracts presented at these meetings eventually found their way into full peer-reviewed articles published in significant journals. Oral presentations (41%) were somewhat more likely to be published than those in poster format (29%). No significant difference in publication rates between the 2 societies was found, suggesting that organized neurosurgery supports both equally. Remarkably similar equipoise was also noted when these presentations came to be published. Approximately half of the 1243 presentationderived articles were divided equally between the Journal of Neurosurgery and Neurosurgery. As the authors note in their Discussion, the rate of conversion of meeting abstract to full publication is at the lower end of the range when compared with similarly published trends from meetings of our colleagues in other subspecialties. It would be interesting to know whether the large majority of presentations that never reached publication were ever submitted. This would highlight where additional scholarly effort might best be focused, at the input stage by the meeting selection committee or at the output stage by the authors themselves. On the other hand, when authors did publish, the majority of full papers came out expeditiously within the 1st year after the meeting. Patel et al. should be commended for presenting the first available description of publication trends for organized neurosurgery’s 2 largest annual meetings. They have shown us that while there is room for scholarly improvement, there also appears to be room for both major venues. In either case, it is clear that all neurosurgeons must continue to take their best work first to 1 of these 2 excellent meetings. Disclosure