Abstract
The authors of this paper recorded the rate of duplicate presentations of abstracts, with or without modifications, at the ESPU and the section of Urology of the AAP meeting in the same year. In fact they may have underestimated the rate of duplicate presentation. For example if an abstract that was presented at the AAP in the fall of one year was then presented again at the ESPU in the spring of the following year, it would have escaped detection according to the method used in this survey. Analysis of duplicate presentations accepted at two top international pediatric urology meetingsJournal of Pediatric UrologyVol. 8Issue 3PreviewMeetings of the European Society for Pediatric Urology (ESPU) and American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) are held annually to promote dissemination of new research findings among practitioners. We conducted an observational study determining the rate of duplicate research presentations at the two meetings. Full-Text PDF Response to Kim, et al. Journal of Pediatric Urology 2012; 8: 291–5 and Editorial comment by Skoog, Journal of Pediatric Urology 2012;8:296Journal of Pediatric UrologyVol. 9Issue 2PreviewWe are pleased to see that the manuscript by Kim et al. [1] on duplicate presentations of abstracts at the ESPU and AAP meetings, published in the 2012 June issue of the Journal, has generated discussion within the paediatric urology community. It seems that our objectives have been met based on the editorial comment and letter written. Our intention was not to take sides on this matter, deciding whether duplicate abstract presentations should be allowed or not. Rather, our goal was to raise awareness about the issue and bring up points in favour or against this practice, ultimately generating an official decision on whether or not it should continue in our specialty. Full-Text PDF
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
