English publication rate of 3,205 abstracts presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association and the Annual Research Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies reported that the publication rate of abstracts presented at overseas meetings was around 50%. The study objectives were to determine the rate of publication in English-language journals and the impact factor (IF) for all papers presented at the Annual Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) and Annual Research Meeting of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOAR), and to compare the publication rates and IFs from abstracts accepted for oral versus poster presentations. MethodsTitles and first authors were identified for 1,676 abstracts of free papers accepted for presentation to the JOA in 2006 and 2007, and 1,529 abstracts to the JOAR from 2006 to 2008. We identified the associated journal publications by searching PubMed, and IFs were determined using the journal citation reports. The publication rates and IFs for papers accepted for oral versus poster presentations were compared using statistical analysis. ResultsThe overall publication rate was 25.5% from the JOA and 50% from the JOAR. There were no significant differences in yearly publication rates, or between oral and poster presentations for each year. The average IFs for all publications from the JOA was 2.45 and that from the JOAR was 3.5. There were no significant differences in yearly IFs, or between oral and poster presentations for each year (P>0.05). ConclusionsThe rate from JOAR was similar to publication rates for abstracts presented at overseas orthopedic meetings, however, the rate from JOA was half that of publication rates for abstracts presented at overseas orthopedic meetings, indicating that JOA may provide a below average contribution of new medical data to the international scientific community. No significant difference in publication rates between oral and poster presentations were found, and this suggests a need for improvement of the review system for the annual meeting and that review scores at the meetings did not predict the publication fate of abstracts.