Differences In Publication Rates Research Articles

Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine Annual Meetings From 2016 to 2019.

Research in the form of poster and podium abstracts is disseminated at subspecialty society meetings. The quality of this research can be defined by exploring the ultimate publication rate of the presented abstracts. To investigate (1) the manuscript publication rate of abstracts presented at the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) annual meeting; (2) whether abstract format (poster vs podium) influences overall or 2-year publication rates and time to publication; (3) the abstract factors that are associated with increased publication rate; and (4) whether publication quality as measured by journal of publication, level of evidence (LOE), and number of citations differs between posters and podiums. Cross-sectional study. Poster and podium abstracts that were presented at the AOSSM annual meetings between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019, were included. The PubMed and GoogleScholar databases were searched by abstract title and authors to determine whether the related manuscript had been published. For published manuscripts, the journal, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, authors, and LOE were recorded. The manuscripts of 664 abstracts (341 poster, 323 podium presentations) were published during the study period. The overall publication rate was 52.4%. Publication within 2 years of the meeting was found to be higher in podium abstracts (45.8%) compared with poster abstracts (37.8%) (P = .0366). Podium abstracts had a shorter time to publication (P < .001), higher LOE (P = .0166), more citations (P < .0001), and were published in higher IF journals (P = .0028). Poster presentations were more likely to undergo a change in first author between the time of the conference and future publication (P = .0300). The most common journal of publication was the American Journal of Sports Medicine (36.8%). Abstracts presented at the AOSSM annual meeting had a high rate of publication within 2 years. There was no difference in publication rates between podium and poster abstracts, but podium abstracts had a shorter time to publication and more future citations and were published in journals with higher IFs.

Perceptions of PGY1 pharmacy resident research, final projects, and associated publication outcomes.

To describe the publication rate and the research landscape of postgraduate year 1 (PGY1) pharmacy residency programs within the Great Lakes Pharmacy Resident Conference (GLPRC) region. This study was comprised of two elements. The first was a retrospective cohort evaluation of previously presented GLPRC research abstracts and publication rates. The second was a 45-question survey of current GLPRC PGY1 residency program directors (RPDs). The primary objective of this study was to evaluate publication rates of PGY1 abstracts submitted to the GLPRC. Secondary objectives included describing RPD perceptions of the value of research, identifying perceived barriers to research completion, and characterizing current and ideal components of residency research programs. A total of 447 PGY1 abstracts were reviewed; 47 (10.5%) resulted in manuscript publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There was no significant difference in publication rates between years (9.5% in 2013 vs 13.8% in 2016 vs 7.4% in 2019, P = 0.166). One hundred ten PGY1 RPDs in the GLPRC region were invited to participate in the survey, with 33 (30%) responses received. The majority of programs (94%) required manuscript submission to the RPD prior to graduation; however, only 12% required submission for peer-reviewed publication. Major barriers to research completion included lack of preceptor time and knowledge regarding the research and publication process, as well as lack of resident interest and knowledge of the process. The current publication rate of PGY1 research abstracts presented at the GLPRC remains at approximately 10%, which is unchanged from a previous investigation. RPD perceptions of the research process and barriers also remain largely unchanged or less favorable.

Future Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at American Society for Surgery of the Hand Annual Conferences From 2017-2020

Purpose Annual meetings held by the American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) highlight a variety of pre-publication research on the hand and upper extremity. We sought to evaluate publication trends and factors associated with the publication of abstracts presented at recent ASSH annual conferences. Methods There were 2,373 abstracts presented at ASSH annual conferences from 2017-2020. These abstracts were identified from program information on the ASSH website. PubMed and Google Scholar were queried to identify publication of these abstracts using abstract title and each author listed. For published manuscripts, the journal, impact factor (IF), level of evidence (LOE), and time to publication were recorded. Results The overall publication rate was 43.9%. Podium abstracts had a higher publication rate (55.0% +/- 14.9%) than poster abstracts (41.0% +/- 8.5%) (p&lt;0.0001). The time to publication from presentation was 12.1 +/- 6.1 months. Published abstracts had a stronger LOE (3.5 +/- 0.9) than non-published abstracts (3.6 +/- 0.8) (p=0.03). The journal IF for published abstracts was 2.4 +/- 1.3. Podium abstracts had a higher average impact factor (2.6 +/- 1.5) than poster abstracts (2.4 +/- 1.3) (p=0.01). Journal of Hand Surgery (JHS) (34.4%; IF: 2.3) was the most common journal of published manuscripts. There were no differences in LOE or IF for Resident and Fellows (R&amp;F) abstracts compared to General Submission abstracts. Conclusions Publication rates of abstracts presented at ASSH annual conferences from 2017-2020 are similar to previously reported literature. Podium abstracts continue to have a higher publication rate than poster abstracts. There was no difference in publication rate between R&amp;F abstracts and General Submission abstracts.

177 International Authorship Trends in Academic Neurosurgery and Effect of Double-Blind Review

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data on international publication rates and whether reviewer biases exist that may affect diversity of authorship. METHODS: Articles published within Neurosurgery, Journal of Neurosurgery (JNS), and World Neurosurgery (WNS) were collected from 2000-2019. Country affiliation data was assigned and analyzed with respect to journal, year of publication, neurosurgical subspeciality, and relative impact. RESULTS: Across 23,325 articles, lead authorship consisted of United States (42.9%, N = 10,005), Japan (9.9%, N = 2,305), China (9.3%, N = 2,167), Germany (5.1%, N = 1,187), South Korea (3.3%, N = 773), Italy (3.3%, N = 773), Canada (3.3%, N = 769), and other nations (22.9%, N = 5,346). Rates of publications did not differ across United States, Asian countries, South/Latin American countries, or African countries pre- and post-initiation of double-blind review in Neurosurgery (p &gt; 0.05). Annual percentage of publications showed highest relative decrease for the United States (-0.48% per year, r2 = 0.194) and increase for China (0.87% per year, r2 = 0.761). WNS published fewer articles from the United States compared to Neurosurgery or JNS (Mean difference [MD] -20.6%, p &lt; 0.001), and more articles from Asian (MD +23.5%, p &lt; 0.001), Latin/South American (MD +1.4%, p &lt; 0.001), and African countries (MD +0.8%, p &lt; 0.001). Unbiased co-authorship clustering by country demonstrated that certain countries were more likely to publish together based on geopolitical characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: There is a higher relative contribution to neurosurgery publications from authors in the United States compared to other countries. This effect is not due to potential biases in single-blind review, as evidenced by a natural experiment comparing authorship rates at Neurosurgery pre- and post-initiation of double-blind review in 2011. Additional research is needed to determine whether other biases contribute to differences in publication rates across countries.

An Investigation of Gold Open Access Publications of STEM Faculty at a Public University in the United States

ABSTRACT This study investigated Gold Open Access journal publication by science and engineering faculty at the authors’ university from 2013 to 2022. Specifically, did Gold Open Access (OA) by these faculty increase, and did the publication rate vary between disciplines? The authors found that Gold OA publication increased by 176% over the past 10 years, and that an important factor was the Libraries’ creation of an Open Access Publishing Fund in 2017. Disciplinary differences in publication rates were also notable, with life sciences research showing the highest rates of open access publication. An analysis of where our faculty are publishing found that MDPI is the most popular Open Access publisher in STEM fields, but many of the new Gold Open Access journals from traditional STEM publishers are also being chosen.

Gender differences in publication rates at Canadian Society of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery annual meetings: an 11-year analysis

BackgroundEvaluating gender differences in publication rates after conference presentations is an avenue to assess women’s contributions to academic medicine. The objective of this study was to assess gender differences in publication rates, time to publication, and subspeciality of publication of abstracts presented at Canadian otolaryngology conferences over an 11-year period.MethodsCross-sectional data was obtained from online conference schedules of annual Canadian Society of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery national meetings between 2009 and 2020. A total of 2111 abstract titles were searched in MedLine via PubMed. Gender of the first and senior author, publication status of presented work, and subspeciality of publication were extracted.ResultsOf 2111 scientific abstracts presented between 2009 and 2020, female first and senior authors accounted for 29.0% and 12.8% of published abstracts, respectively. There was a significant difference in the publication rate of senior authors by gender (p < 0.01). Male senior authors had a 9.70% higher rate of publication compared to female senior authors. Posters with a female first author were 33.0% (OR: 0.67; 95% CI 0.49–0.91) less likely to be published compared to posters with a male first author. Similarly, posters with a female senior author were 34.0% (OR: 0.66; 95% CI 0.45–0.96) less likely to be published. There was a significant difference in discipline of publication by gender of the senior author (p < 0.001). Male senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in otology while female senior authors were more likely to supervise projects in education and pediatrics. The time to publication and impact factor of the journal of publication did not differ by gender.ConclusionGender disparities exist in the publication rates of first and senior authors at Canadian otolaryngology meetings. Female senior authors have significantly lower publication rates compared to their male colleagues and differences exist in publication rates after poster presentations. Investigation of gender gaps in academic medicine, research productivity, and publications is essential for development of a diverse, equitable, and inclusive workforce in otolaryngology.Graphical

Gender and the Academy of Management Journal: A Thirty-Year Study

This article examines the gap in gender bias-related publication using the Academy of Management Journal, a top-tier management journal, as a reference point. Specifically, we examine, over time, the difference in publication rates for women, men, and the characteristics of diverse teams of scholars in terms of their publication results.

Impact of the KL2/Catalyst Medical Research Investigator Training (CMeRIT) Program on the careers of early-stage clinical and translational investigators.

The Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT program is a 2-year mentored institutional career award that includes KL2 grants funded by National Institutes of Health (NIH) and CMeRIT grants funded by Harvard Catalyst nonfederal funds. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes for early-stage investigators funded by the KL2/CMeRIT program to a group of applicants who were not chosen for support to assess the potential impact of the program on early career outcomes. Career data, including academic promotions, subsequent grant funding, and publication rates, from both successful and unsuccessful 2008-2018 KL2/CMeRIT applicants were compiled throughout the year 2020. Data were obtained directly through outreach to both groups and through assessment of online resources. The cohort comprised 487 individuals, 109 awardees, and 378 nonawardees. Awardees were more likely to be subsequently involved in clinical and translational research than nonawardees (92% vs 75%, p < 0.001). A higher proportion of awardees also had achieved academic promotion (81% vs 69%, p = 0.016) and subsequent NIH funding (72% vs 58%, p = 0.047), while there was no difference in publication rates (p = 0.555). Participants in the Harvard Catalyst KL2/CMeRIT program demonstrate greater early career success than nonparticipants though the nonparticipants also fared relatively well.

Study Groups and POSNA: A Review of Podium Presentations From 2006 to 2020.

Study groups are multicenter collaborations aimed at improving orthopaedic decision-making through higher-powered, more generalizable studies. New research is disseminated through peer-reviewed literature and academic meetings, including the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America (POSNA) annual meeting, which brings together academic and medical professionals in pediatric orthopaedics. The goal of this study was to identify patterns in podium presentations (PP) at the POSNA annual meeting resulting from multicenter study groups during a 15-year period. A total of 2065 PP from the 2006 to 2020 POSNA annual meetings were identified. The abstracts of each PP were reviewed to determine if they resulted from a multicenter study group and for characteristics including subspecialty focus. PP from 2006 to 2018 were further reviewed for publication in academic journals. Pearson correlation was used to assess change in the number of PP resulting from study groups overtime. Univariate analysis was used to compare characteristics of PP based on study group involvement (significance P<0.05). The proportion of PP resulting from study groups increased from 2.2% (n=2) in 2006 to 9.4% in 2020 (n=16) (R2=0.519, P=0.002). Of the PP resulting from study groups, 52.9% focused on spine, 26.5% on hip, 2.9% on sports, and 2.0% on trauma. This is compared with a distribution of 16.7% (P<0.001) spine, 15.9% (P=0.005) hip, 9.5% (P=0.026) sports, and 14.6% (P<0.001) trauma focus of PP not from study groups. There was no difference in publication rate of PP resulting from study groups compared with those that were not (69.1% vs. 66.2%, P=0.621). In the 15-year period from 2006 to 2020, there was a nearly 5-fold increase in the proportion of POSNA PP resulting from study groups. Spine surgery is disproportionately supported by study groups, suggesting that there is an opportunity to establish new study groups across the breadth of pediatric orthopaedics. Level V.

MP20-13 FROM ABSTRACT TO MANUSCRIPT: EVALUATING UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY PUBLICATION RATES FROM AUA ANNUAL MEETINGS (2012-2019)

You have accessJournal of UrologyEducation Research III (MP20)1 Sep 2021MP20-13 FROM ABSTRACT TO MANUSCRIPT: EVALUATING UROLOGIC ONCOLOGY PUBLICATION RATES FROM AUA ANNUAL MEETINGS (2012-2019) Megan Prunty, Stephen Rhodes, Noah Yaffe, Sarah Markt, Lauren Snodgrass, Clint Cary, Ronald S. Boris, Laura Bukavina, and Adam C. Calaway Megan PruntyMegan Prunty More articles by this author , Stephen RhodesStephen Rhodes More articles by this author , Noah YaffeNoah Yaffe More articles by this author , Sarah MarktSarah Markt More articles by this author , Lauren SnodgrassLauren Snodgrass More articles by this author , Clint CaryClint Cary More articles by this author , Ronald S. BorisRonald S. Boris More articles by this author , Laura BukavinaLaura Bukavina More articles by this author , and Adam C. CalawayAdam C. Calaway More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002005.13AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: We analyzed the differences in organ system, publication rate, time-to-publication, and impact factor of manuscripts from all oncology-related abstracts from the American Urological Association (AUA) Annual Meeting between 2012 and 2019. METHODS: We used the titles of 6,347 AUA Abstracts to query PubMed for associated manuscripts. To infer publication status from title similarity, an independent rater sampled 300 records to identify whether each Pubmed record was related to an AUA abstract. These ratings were used to fit a logistic regression predicting publication status of AUA abstracts from our title similarity measure (94.5% accurate). Logistic regression models assessed publication rate by author gender, type of presentation, and research category. F-tests were used to analyze impact factor and time-to-publication. RESULTS: 18% of abstracts resulted in publication. In comparing organ of interest, prostate cancer manuscripts resulted in significantly higher impact factor (IF) publications than both bladder (p=0.044) and kidney (p=0.005). Penile cancer had significantly fewer citations per year relative to bladder (p=0.002), kidney (p=0.002), and prostate (p=0.003). The other categories did not significantly differ from each other (ps>0.09). In comparing poster vs. podium AUA presentations, if published, podiums resulted in higher IF journals publications (p=0.0006), although no difference in citations were seen (F (1,821)=0.45, p=0.5). There was no significant difference in publication rate (χ2(1)=0.39, p=0.53) or time-to-publication (F(1,847)=0.32, p=0.57) between poster or podium. There has been no significant increase in AUA abstracts in oncology by females between 2012 and 2019 (χ2(1)=2.43, p=0.12). Author gender did not influence publication status (χ2(3)=1.48, p=0.69) or impact factor of published works (F(3,794)=0.62, p=0.6). CONCLUSIONS: In urologic oncology, only 13.8% of AUA Abstracts are subsequently published as manuscripts. Efforts to move abstracts into publication are needed to mitigate academic waste and encourage productivity. Prostate cancer podiums are published in higher IF journals. However, this does not translate to more citations per year for prostate cancer manuscripts. Source of Funding: n/a © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e341-e342 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Megan Prunty More articles by this author Stephen Rhodes More articles by this author Noah Yaffe More articles by this author Sarah Markt More articles by this author Lauren Snodgrass More articles by this author Clint Cary More articles by this author Ronald S. Boris More articles by this author Laura Bukavina More articles by this author Adam C. Calaway More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...

A Gender Gap in Publishing? Understanding the Glass Ceiling in Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgery.

Women are underrepresented across most surgical specialties and especially in the field of orthopaedic surgery. Despite pediatric orthopaedic surgery being one of the most gender diverse subspecialties in orthopaedics, women may still face barriers to academic advancement. Research presentations at national meetings and publication record are important drivers of advancement in the field of academic orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to assess whether research abstracts authored by women are less likely to be published than abstracts authored by men. Abstracts from research podium presentations given at the Pediatric Orthopaedic Society of North America annual meetings from 2006 to 2020 were reviewed to assess research quality and determine basic study characteristics. For each abstract, author gender was determined through a search of institutional websites and professional networking websites for gender-specific pronouns. Resulting publications corresponding to the 2006 to 2018 were identified using a systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar databases. Kaplan-Meier inverse survival analysis with log rank test were used to determine differences in publication rates based on whether the last (senior) author was female versus male. Multivariate, binary logistic regression was performed to assess factors predictive of eventual publication. One thousand five hundred and eighty-one of 1626 (97.2%) of abstracts from 2006 to 2020 had an identifiable last author gender, with 17.8% (281/1581) female. No differences in study quality were identified across genders including sample size, level of evidence, or impact factor of journal if leading to publication. Women were more likely to author abstracts in foot, ankle, or lower extremity surgery [17.8% (50/281) vs. 12.9% (168/1300), P=0.032] and less likely to author abstracts focusing on the hip [11.0% (31/281) vs. 17.1% (222/1300), P=0.012]. Abstracts with women as the last author were significantly less likely to be published compared with abstracts with men as the last author [59.6% (143/240) vs. 67.9% (783/1154), P=0.013]. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that last author female gender was predictive of a lower likelihood of publication (odds ratio: 0.684, 95% confidence interval: 0.513-0.912, P=0.010). Women were less likely to be the last author of abstracts presented by study groups [2.1% (6/281) vs. 5.5% (71/1300), P=0.019]. In pediatric orthopaedic surgery, abstracts authored by women are less likely to reach publication, despite no identifiable differences in study quality. Reasons for this discrepancy must be explored including insufficient mentorship, exclusion from study group participation, or potential bias against female researchers in the field of orthopaedic surgery. Level IV.

Has Female Authorship in Family Medicine Research Evolved Over Time?

Studies conducted in medical fields other than family medicine show that gender differences in publication rates are pronounced in many, but not all, fields of medicine. Our objective was to assess possible gender differences in publication rates in family medicine journals. Using MEDLINE, we collected information on all journal articles published in 3 family medicine journals in the United States (Family Medicine, Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, and Annals of Family Medicine) during the period 2008 to 2017. Gender of first and last author for each article was assigned using first names. The gender breakdown of the editorial boards during this time period was also examined. For the 3 journals combined during the period 2008 to 2017, 46.1% (1,209/2,623) of first authors were female, and 38.6% (857/2,223) of last authors were female. For all journals combined, there was a statistically significant increase in first authorship (43.2% in 2008 vs 52.1% in 2017; P<.001) and last authorship (28.8% in 2008 vs 41.8% in 2017; P <.001) over time. The editorial boards of the journals combined were 37.2% (279/749) female, and this did not increase significantly over the time period studied (35.5% in 2008 vs 39.2% in 2017; P=.49). Representation of female authors in family medicine journals is increasing, yet last authorship remains low, and there is variation between journals in terms of gender equity. Future studies can evaluate the reason for these differences and offer solutions to publications as they try to increase their female authorship.

Publication rates in animal research. Extent and characteristics of published and non-published animal studies followed up at two German university medical centres.

Non-publication and publication bias in animal research is a core topic in current debates on the “reproducibility crisis” and “failure rates in clinical research”. To date, however, we lack reliable evidence on the extent of non-publication in animal research. We collected a random and stratified sample (n = 210) from all archived animal study protocols of two major German UMCs (university medical centres) and tracked their results publication. The overall publication rate was 67%. Excluding doctoral theses as results publications, the publication rate decreased to 58%. We did not find substantial differences in publication rates with regard to i) the year of animal study approval, ii) the two UMCs, iii) the animal type (rodents vs. non-rodents), iv) the scope of research (basic vs. preclinical), or v) the discipline of the applicant. Via the most reliable assessment strategy currently available, our study confirms that the non-publication of results from animal studies conducted at UMCs is relatively common. The non-publication of 33% of all animal studies is problematic for the following reasons: A) the primary legitimation of animal research, which is the intended knowledge gain for the wider scientific community, B) the waste of public resources, C) the unnecessary repetition of animal studies, and D) incomplete and potentially biased preclinical evidence for decision making on launching early human trials. Results dissemination should become a professional standard for animal research. Academic institutions and research funders should develop effective policies in this regard.

Factors Associated With the Publication of Registered Randomized Controlled Trials in Obstetrics [18K

INTRODUCTION: In an effort to improve transparency, as part of the Food and Drug Amendment Act of 2007, Congress mandated that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) be registered on clinicaltrials.gov. The aim of this review was to identify factors associated with the publication of registered RCTs on obstetrical topics. METHODS: Study data was collected from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) database at clinicaltrials.gov. The database was queried by NIH recommended obstetrical terms for trials with a registered start date from 2009-2013. Self-reported descriptive data of the registered studies was abstracted. PubMed was interrogated for all self-identified completed projects for publication information by September 2018. RESULTS: Over the five-year study period, 412 obstetrical RCTs were registered and 266 (65%) were completed. Among the completed RCTs, 166 (62%) were published in a MEDLINE indexed journal. Compared to projects without publication, projects that resulted in publication had a larger sample size (median 179 vs 97.5 P<.005), and were more likely to be multicenter studies (P <.022). There was no difference in publication rates between United States-based or international studies (P<.56). Industry-funded projects were less likely to be published than those funded by the NIH (P<.017). Studies involving drug, device or procedure interventions were more likely to result in publication (P<.014). CONCLUSION: About 2 in 3 completed randomized control trials on obstetrical topics are published within five-years of being completed. Interventions may be necessary to increase the completion and publication rate of registered RCTs.

Why gender and research productivity matters in academia: Exploring evidence from NASPAA-accredited schools

ABSTRACTThis study is the first to examine the research productivity of public administration faculty by gender through the perceptions of full-time faculty members at NASPAA-accredited schools. It specifically examines how research productivity varies by gender according to faculty tenure status and academic rank. This study extends previous research by using survey methodology to explore research productivity through the perceptions of faculty using gender, tenure status, and academic rank. Findings suggest that during tenure-track years and after tenure, women publish significantly less than men overall. Findings also suggest that women who are assistant and full professors publish significantly less than men in similar ranks. Finally, the study finds no significant differences in publication rates between women and men who reported themselves to be associate professors. Through this study, the authors make three contributions to the discipline and present three recommendations that explore avenues to develop the research productivity of women in public administration scholarship.

Predictors of Publication Rates for Abstracts Presented at the American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy Annual Meetings

Objective. To examine trends in manuscript publication rates for abstracts presented at the 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015 American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy (AACP) annual meetings. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar was performed. "New" colleges and schools of pharmacy were defined as receiving accreditation after 1996. Contingency tables and t-tests were applied. Results. There were 1382 abstracts evaluated. The overall publication rate was 20% and there was no difference in publication rates over 15 years. The median time to publication for years 2000, 2005, and 2010 was 15 months. The most frequent journal for publication was the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education. The primary analysis identified several predictors for publication, including collaboration, presence of a PhD pharmaceutical program or academic medical center, and use of inferential statistics. There was no difference in manuscript publication when comparing "new" and legacy schools. Conclusion. The publication rate of AACP abstracts has remained steady despite the increase in pharmacy schools and colleges and faculty. Collaboration among institutions was the strongest predictor for publication, highlighting its importance. The low publication rate observed may be attributed to a lack of training for junior faculty, insufficient forums to publish work, or misaligned motivations for scholarship among faculty. These barriers should be examined further.

Paediatric abstract publication rates for the American Society of Echocardiography Meeting.

Abstract presentations of scientific information at meetings are important for broadcasting new information. Publication of these studies should be the final goal, but minimal data exist documenting publication rates, especially for paediatric sub-speciality meetings. The goal of this study was to document the manuscript publication rate for paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts and to determine whether there were differences between abstracts that were published versus not published. Paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstracts presented from 2007 to 2011 at the American Society of Echocardiography Meetings were reviewed. Characteristics of the abstracts were noted. A Medline/Pubmed search was performed using keywords, first author, and senior author criteria to determine publication. Fisher's exact tests or χ2 tests were used for analysis. A total of 194 abstracts were reviewed. In all, 27 abstracts were oral presentations and 167 were poster presentations. A total of 124 abstracts were prospective studies and 70 were retrospective studies; 11 abstracts were basic science studies and 183 were clinical studies. Altogether, 25 abstracts dealt with three-dimensional echocardiography, 15 with fetal echocardiography, 56 with deformation analysis, 79 with standard transthoracic echocardiography, and 19 were in the other category. A total of 73 abstracts were subsequently published - with a 37.6% publication rate - 2.1±1.7 years after initial presentation. There were no significant differences in publication rates based on the above-noted variables. A paediatric cardiac echocardiography abstract publication rate of 37.6% is comparable to previous published publication rates for other meetings. No differences in variables analysed were noted between published versus unpublished abstracts.

Publications Rates for Podium and Poster Presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society

Category: Other Introduction/Purpose: National orthopaedic meetings are used to disseminate current research. These abstracts are commonly intended to go on to full-text publication in peer-reviewed journals. Several studies have reviewed the abstract to full-text journal publications for orthopaedic society meetings and reported a 34% to 73% publication rate. This has not been studied for the foot and ankle literature. The purpose of this study is to determine the full-text journal publication rates of podium and poster presentations from the American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) Annual meetings between 2008 and 2012. Methods: All abstracts submitted to and subsequently accepted for podium and poster presentations from the 2008 to 2012 AOFAS annual meetings were compiled from the AOFAS and the published meeting programs. In May 2016, PubMed searches were performed using individual key words in the abstract title with all authors’ names. The results were reviewed for matches to the meeting abstracts with regards to content similarities. Time to full-text publication was recorded. Full-text publication rates for podium and poster presentations were calculated per year. The top journals of publication for podium and poster abstracts were calculated. Continuous data was summarized using mean ± standard deviation and categorical data was summarized using counts and percents. Difference in publication rates between podium and poster presentations was determined by an odds ratio. Results: From 2008 to 2012, 1262 abstracts were submitted to the annual meeting. The overall abstract publication rate was 62.4%: 73.7% for podium abstracts and 55.8% for poster abstracts. Podium presentations were significantly more likely to be published compared to posters (p&lt; 0.0001; odds ratio 2.17, 95% CI, 1.64-2.86). Mean time to publication was 1.53 and 1.37 years for podium and poster presentations, respectively (p=0.124). The three most common journals for published podium abstracts were Foot and Ankle International (FAI) (50.4%), Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) (13.0%) and The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM) (4.3%). For poster abstracts, the three most common journals were: FAI (36.9%), Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery (9.4%) and Foot and Ankle Specialist (8.5%). Conclusion: Podium abstracts were over two times more likely to be published compared to poster abstracts. The overall full- text publication rate for the AOFAS was one of the higher reported rates compared to other national orthopaedic society meetings. The significance of the high full-text publication rate is unclear; it may reflect the quality of presented material or commitment to publication by the authors. The top journal for podium and poster abstracts was FAI, indicating the presentations’ specialty-focus.

Publication Rate of Podium Presentations From the North American Spine Society Annual Meetings.

Study Design:Observational study.Objectives:To determine the publication rate of podium presentations from the North American Spine Society (NASS) annual meetings from the years 2009 to 2011.Methods:In April 2015, a PubMed search was conducted using titles from the paper presentations as well as the authors. Of the search results that were found, the specific scientific journal in which the article was published was recorded. We analyzed further the top 4 destination journals and trends in publications in these journals over the study period. No study funding was obtained for this research, and there are no potential conflicts of interest or associated biases.Results:Over the study period, 671 paper presentations were available and 342 were published (51% publication rate). The highest publication rate was from the 2011 annual meeting, with 55.3%, and the lowest year was 2010, with a rate of 46.43%. Spine (32.75%), The Spine Journal (19.01%), Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (7.31%), and European Spine Journal (6.73%) were the top 4 destination journals. Over the study period, we found a significant decrease in publication rate in Spine (P = .001) and a significant increase in publication rate in The Spine Journal (P = .003). There were no significant difference in publication rate over the study period in Journal of Neurosurgery Spine (P = .15) or European Spine Journal (P = .23).Conclusions:This is the first study to our knowledge evaluating the publication rate of podium presentations from recent North American Spine Society annual meetings. We found an overall publication rate of 51%.

Illuminating the (in)visibility of female scholars: a gendered analysis of publishing rates within educational technology journals from 2004 to 2015

ABSTRACTThis research study utilized bibliometric methods to analyze publication rates among female and male lead authors in six prominent, peer-reviewed journals in Educational Technology (ET) fields over the past 12 years. The aim of the inquiry was to determine if differences or trends exist in the number of articles published by each gender. Data analysis revealed notable differences in publication rates between genders, and key findings indicate that while women overall published less than half of the articles from all journals sampled, two journals with a focus on primary and secondary (P-12) educational contexts have consistently published more articles written by female lead authors than male authors. The findings of this study hold practical relevance in terms of addressing the (in)visibility of female scholars in ET fields and may be used to promote discussions and actions related to the intersections between gender, equity, and the culture of scholarly publishing.