Reasons For Non-publication Research Articles

교과서 집필기준 비발간이 통일교육 개선에 주는 의미와 과제

On December 22, 2022, the ‘2022 Revised Curriculum’ was announced, and on January 27, 2023, ‘Compilation Points to Consider and Certification Standards for the Development of Certification Books According to the 2022 Revised Curriculum’ was published. In addition, the ‘2023 Basic Direction for Unification Education’, the first unification education guideline of the Yoon Seok-yeol government, was published on March 14, 2023. The purpose of this study is to explore the meaning, implications, and challenges of the non-publication of textbook writing standards according to the 2022 revised curriculum in improving unification education. For research purposes, 1) background and reason for non-publication of textbook writing standards, 2) problems with textbook writing standards related to unification education, 3) implications of unification/North Korea awareness and unification education practice for improving unification education, 4) textbook writing standards The meaning and challenges of non-publication in improving unification education were explored.

Publication rate and factors associated with publication of research projects by obstetrics residents in an academic department over 10 years

ObjectivesTo determine the publication rate of mandatory research projects conducted by obstetrics residents and to evaluate the publication-associated factors and reported obstacles. Study designThis retrospective cohort study included all consecutive residents in an academic obstetrics-gynecology department in Paris, France, between 2010 and 2020. All residents were required to conduct a research project. Information about publication was collected by searching PubMed. A closed-ended questions questionnaire was sent to former residents about their characteristics, subsequent professional development, and research project characteristics. Factors associated with publication were identified by univariable and multivariable analysis with logistic regression. ResultsDuring the study period, 156 residents trained in our obstetrics-gynecology department. The overall publication rate was 30.8% (48/156) and the median time to publication 27 months (IQR, 18–37). The resident was first author in 36 (75.0%) publications. Among the 130 (83.3%) residents who completed the questionnaire, 43 (33%) had published their research project. Overall, 74/130 (60.8%) residents used their project for their mandatory medical thesis. Factors associated with publication in univariable analysis were younger age (median), completion of a PhD, planned career in academic medicine, prospective study design, presentation at a conference or congress and use their project for their medical thesis. The only factors associated with publication in the multivariable analysis were planned career in academic medicine (aOR 5.62 95 %CI[1.84–17.19]) and the prospective study design of the research project (aOR 6.1 95 %CI[1.24–29.56]). The main reasons for nonpublication reported by resident were lack of time and failure to complete the project. ConclusionAmong the mandatory clinical research projects conducted by obstetrics residents over a decade in our department, 30.8% were published. The main factors associated with publication were planned career in academic medicine and a prospective design of the research project.

Unpublished clinical trials of common rheumatic diseases.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provide high-quality evidence for treatment efficacy, but many RCTs remain unpublished. The objective of this study was to describe the proportion of unpublished RCTs in five rheumatic diseases and to identify factors associated with publication. Registered RCTs for five rheumatic diseases (SLE, vasculitis, spondyloarthritis, SS and PsA) with over 30 months since study completion were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov. Index publications were identified by NCT ID numbers and structured text searches of publication databases. The results of unpublished studies were identified in abstracts and press releases; reasons for non-publication were assessed by surveying corresponding authors. Out of 203 studies that met eligibility criteria, 17.2% remained unpublished, representing data from 4281 trial participants. Higher proportions of published trials were phase 3 RCTs (57.1% vs 28.6% unpublished, P < 0.05) or had a positive primary outcome measure (64.9% vs 25.7% unpublished, P < 0.001). In a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model, a positive outcome was independently associated with publication (hazard ratio 1.55; 95% CI: 1.09, 2.22). Corresponding authors of 10 unpublished trials cited ongoing preparation of the manuscript (50.0%), sponsor/funder issues (40.0%) and unimportant/negative result (20.0%) as reasons for lack of publication. Nearly one in five RCTs in rheumatology remain unpublished 2 years after trial completion, and publication is associated with positive primary outcome measures. Efforts to encourage universal publication of rheumatology RCTs and reanalysis of previously unpublished trials should be undertaken.

Be Positive! International Stroke Conference Oral Presentations ‐ 2015 to 2020

Be Positive! International Stroke Conference Oral Presentations ‐ 2015 to 2020

M204 Publication outcomes of the abstracts presented at the annual conferences of Pakistan Society of Chemical Pathologist (PSCP) and reasons for non-publication

M204 Publication outcomes of the abstracts presented at the annual conferences of Pakistan Society of Chemical Pathologist (PSCP) and reasons for non-publication

An analysis of the rates of discontinuation and non-publication of colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Non-publication and premature discontinuation for clinical trials pose an ethical dilemma for trial participants, patients, clinicians, and researchers, as well as the general public as these studies receive significant public funding that may be further contributing to research waste. Here, we investigate the rate of trial discontinuation and non-publication among CRC trials using ClinicalTrials.gov. We performed an advanced search on ClinicalTrials.gov pertaining to the treatment of CRC using the keyword colorectal cancer. For each clinical trial, links to the publication provided by ClinicalTrials.gov were searched and verified to be correct. If a publication was unable to be found using the methods above, we attempted to contact the lead investigator via email for the reason for non-publication. Of the 123 (123/428, 28.7%) discontinued trials, a reason for discontinuation was provided for 57 (57/123, 46.3%) trials. Of the 305 (305/428, 71.3%) completed trials, 244 (244/305, 80.0%) had a verifiable publication, while 61 (61/305, 20.0%) did not publish their findings or were unable to be located. We found that more than one-quarter of trials were prematurely ended, and almost one-third of completed trials did not publish their findings. Subjecting trial participants to potentially harmful treatments and interventions that fail to complete or publish study findings have the potential to undermine the patient-provider relationship, as well as public confidence in government-sponsored clinical trials.

P14: DISCONTINUATION AND NON-PUBLICATION OF SURGICAL RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALS IN THE SETTING OF ILEUS: OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

Abstract Introduction Once regarded as an inevitable occurrence after surgery, ileus is now recognised as an unmet clinical need. Despite this, few studies have shown meaningful clinical benefit which may be due to the challenges associated with conducting trials in this setting. The aim of this study was to determine the rate of discontinuation and non-publication of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the setting of ileus. Method A systematic search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed using the keyword “ileus”. RCTs registered between 2003-2019 involving abdominal surgery were eligible. Studies were divided according to completion status. Authors were contacted to seek information about the circumstances for discontinuation and non-publication. For completed studies, evidence of a published manuscript was sought. Result Of 262 trials identified, 81 were eligible for analysis. Amongst 27 discontinued trials, email addresses were identified for 24 (88.9%) and replies received from 6 (25.1%). The most common reasons for discontinuation were loss of clinical significance (n=2) and insufficient recruitment (n=2). Amongst 54 completed studies, manuscripts were identified for 34 (63.0%). Of these, email addresses were identified for 12 (60.0%) and replies received from 5 (41.7%). The most common reason for non-publication was a lack of time/resources/personnel (n=3). Conclusion One third of trials undertaken were discontinued and of those which did reach completion, less than two thirds reported results. A lack of resources and loss of clinical significance were predominant reasons. There is an urgent need to address methodological barriers in research relating to ileus to promote rigorous evaluation of new treatments. Take-home message One third of trials undertaken were discontinued and of those which did reach completion, less than two thirds reported results. A lack of resources and loss of clinical significance were predominant reasons. There is an urgent need to address methodological barriers in research relating to ileus to promote rigorous evaluation of new treatments.

Sorting the File Drawer: A Typology for Describing Unpublished Studies

A typology of unpublished studies is presented to describe various types of unpublished studies and the reasons for their nonpublication. Reasons for nonpublication are classified by whether they stem from an awareness of the study results (result-dependent reasons) or not (result-independent reasons) and whether the reasons affect the publication decisions of individual researchers or reviewers/editors. I argue that result-independent reasons for nonpublication are less likely to introduce motivated reasoning into the publication decision process than are result-dependent reasons. I also argue that some reasons for nonpublication would produce beneficial as opposed to problematic publication bias. The typology of unpublished studies provides a descriptive scheme that can facilitate understanding of the population of study results across the field of psychology, within subdisciplines of psychology, or within specific psychology research domains. The typology also offers insight into different publication biases and research-dissemination practices and can guide individual researchers in organizing their own file drawers of unpublished studies.

Detecting the Dark Matter of Unpublished Clinical Cancer Studies: An Analysis of Phase 3 Randomized Controlled Trials

Unpublished randomized controlled trial (RCT) frequency, correlates, and financial impact are not well understood. We sought to characterize the nonpublication of peer-reviewed manuscripts among interventional, therapeutic, multi-arm, phase 3 oncology RCTs. Trials were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov, while publications and abstracts were identified through PubMed and Google Scholar. Trial data were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov and individual publications. Publication was defined as a peer-reviewed manuscript addressing the primary endpoint. Patient accrual cost was extrapolated from experimental data; investigators/sponsors were contacted to determine nonpublication reasons. Six hundred eighty-four completed RCTs met inclusion criteria, which accrued 434,610 patients from 1994 to 2015; 638 were published (93.3%) and 46 were unpublished (6.7%). Among the unpublished trials, the time difference from primary endpoint maturity to data abstraction was a median of 6 years (interquartile range, 4 to 8 years). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors associated with unpublished trials included lack of cooperative group sponsorship (odds ratio, 5.91, 95% CI, 1.35 to 25.97; P=.019) and supportive care investigation (odds ratio, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.13 to 7.41; P=.027). The estimated inflation-adjusted average cost of patient accrual for all unpublished trials was $113,937,849 (range, $41,136,883 to $320,201,063). Direct contact with sponsors/investigators led to a 50.0% response rate (n=23 of 46); manuscript in preparation and/or in submission (n=10 of 23) was the most commonly cited reason for nonpublication. In conclusion, approximately 1 in 15 clinical oncology RCTs are unpublished and this has a profound impact on the research enterprise. The cooperative group infrastructure may serve as a blueprint to reduce nonpublication.

Religion &amp; Democracy: Interactions, Tensions, Possibilities

Religion &amp; Democracy: Interactions, Tensions, Possibilities

Opposing Laws with Religious Reasons

Opposing Laws with Religious Reasons

Is Public Reason stable here? A Reflection through the experience of “Same-Sex Marriage “debates in Taiwan

Public reason is a well-known concept, which requires participants in debates to provide non-comprehensive doctrine to guarantee stability. However, in Taiwan’s discussion of “Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage”, some debaters overemphasized this concept and then criticized the other side who provided non-public reasons. It did not gain the stability that Rawls really concerns about and ultimately caused trouble for the movement: the defeat of the 2018 referendum. Through the experience of public discussion in Taiwan, I will reflect on the potential weakness of this idea in this essay and point out the reasons for the failure of public reason. To present its weakness, I will introduce the core idea of stability in section II and explain how it relates to the idea of public reason in Rawls's theory. Section III would provide a Rawlsian critique by introducing the difference between internal reasons (with motives) and external reasons (without motives). The problem of public reason, in my opinion, is that it cannot motivate people, especially those who believe in religious doctrine. After an overview of the account's problems, I will provide a brief analysis and point out that exclusion and polarization through public causes can also threaten stability. The last part is the conclusion.

Half of systematic reviews about pain registered in PROSPERO were not published and the majority had inaccurate status

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyze the publication path of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in the field of anesthesiology and pain registered in the PROSPERO database. Study Design and SettingWe analyzed characteristics of SRs registered in PROSPERO from its inception to May 2017 and their publication status in August 2018. We surveyed corresponding authors of unpublished SRs about accuracy of PROSPERO status and reasons for nonpublication. ResultsAfter screening 1,408 records from PROSPERO database, we found that the majority had “ongoing” (76.3%) and “completed not published” (9.2%) status. Survey of authors showed that most of the records had not been updated (82.4%, 526/638); SR had already been published in 75.2% (396/526), and work on SR had been discontinued in 7.8% (41/526) of cases. In total, based on PROSPERO status, survey of authors, and database searches, 53.6% (742/1,384) of SRs had been published within a period of 1.3 years or more following their registration. Main reasons for discontinuing work on SR were publication of an SR with similar or same topic by another author team and rejection of SR manuscript. ConclusionOnly 16.3% of PROSPERO records had accurate status, and 46.4% of SRs were still unpublished. Further steps to ensure accuracy of PROSPERO status are needed, along with developing strategies for improvement of SR production process.

Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey

ObjectiveWe analyzed patterns of publication of Cochrane review protocols (CRPs). Study Design and SettingWe analyzed CRPs published in 2010, extracted their characteristics, and analyzed whether they were published by February 2018. We surveyed corresponding authors and Cochrane review groups to analyze reasons for nonpublication of protocols and analyzed factors predicting the time to publication. ResultsOf 576 CRPs, 446 (77.4%) were published as a full review and 130 (22.6%) were still unpublished in February 2018; among unpublished, 37 (28.5%) were withdrawn and 93 (71.5%) were still active. The most common authors' reason for abandoning a protocol was a lack of time to work on the review. The median time to publication was 2.78 years (range 0.96 to 8.05). Multivariate analysis showed that factors with the strongest association with shorter time to publication were review being an update and new authors added. Analysis only on methodological variables indicated that the strongest association for a shorter time until publication was found for including only published data. ConclusionsAlmost a quarter of CRPs remains unpublished after 8 years. This figure is slightly higher than in a previous analysis 10 years ago. Strategies for enhancing completion of Cochrane reviews should be considered.

Public reason, non-public reasons, and the accessibility requirement

AbstractInLiberalism without Perfection,Jonathan Quong develops what is perhaps the most comprehensive defense of the consensus model of public reason – a model which incorporates both a public-reasons-only requirement and an accessibility requirement framed in terms of shared evaluative standards. While the consensus model arguably predominates amongst public reason liberals, it is criticized by convergence theorists who reject both the public-reasons-only requirement and the accessibility requirement. In this paper, I argue that while we have good reason to reject Quong’s call for a public-reasons-only requirement, all public reason liberals should endorse at least some shared evaluative standards and, hence, an accessibility requirement.

Nonpublication Rates and Characteristics of Registered Randomized Clinical Trials in Digital Health: Cross-Sectional Analysis.

BackgroundClinical trials are key to advancing evidence-based medical research. The medical research literature has identified the impact of publication bias in clinical trials. Selective publication for positive outcomes or nonpublication of negative results could misdirect subsequent research and result in literature reviews leaning toward positive outcomes. Digital health trials face specific challenges, including a high attrition rate, usability issues, and insufficient formative research. These challenges may contribute to nonpublication of the trial results. To our knowledge, no study has thus far reported the nonpublication rates of digital health trials.ObjectiveThe primary research objective was to evaluate the nonpublication rate of digital health randomized clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Our secondary research objective was to determine whether industry funding contributes to nonpublication of digital health trials.MethodsTo identify digital health trials, a list of 47 search terms was developed through an iterative process and applied to the “Title,” “Interventions,” and “Outcome Measures” fields of registered trials with completion dates between April 1, 2010, and April 1, 2013. The search was based on the full dataset exported from the ClinlicalTrials.gov database, with 265,657 trials entries downloaded on February 10, 2018, to allow publication of studies within 5 years of trial completion. We identified publications related to the results of the trials through a comprehensive approach that included an automated and manual publication-identification process.ResultsIn total, 6717 articles matched the a priori search terms, of which 803 trials matched our latest completion date criteria. After screening, 556 trials were included in this study. We found that 150 (27%) of all included trials remained unpublished 5 years after their completion date. In bivariate analyses, we observed statistically significant differences in trial characteristics between published and unpublished trials in terms of the intervention target condition, country, trial size, trial phases, recruitment, and prospective trial registration. In multivariate analyses, differences in trial characteristics between published and unpublished trials remained statistically significant for the intervention target condition, country, trial size, trial phases, and recruitment; the odds of publication for non-US–based trials were significant, and these trials were 3.3 (95% CI 1.845-5.964) times more likely to be published than US–based trials. We observed a trend of 1.5 times higher nonpublication rates for industry-funded trials. However, the trend was not statistically significant.ConclusionsIn the domain of digital health, 27% of registered clinical trials results are unpublished, which is lower than nonpublication rates in other fields. There are substantial differences in nonpublication rates between trials funded by industry and nonindustry sponsors. Further research is required to define the determinants and reasons for nonpublication and, more importantly, to articulate the impact and risk of publication bias in the field of digital health trials.

Conversion of Skeletal Society of Radiology annual meeting abstracts to publications in 2010–2015

BackgroundMaterial presented at conferences is meant to provide exposure to ongoing research that could affect medical decision making based on future outcomes. It is important then to evaluate the rates of publication from conference presentations as a measure of academic quality as such research has undergone peer review and journal acceptance. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the fate of abstracts presented at the Skeletal Society of Radiology Annual Meetings from 2010–2015.Materials and MethodsConference abstracts were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed (which includes Medline) to locate the corresponding published reports. The data recorded for published studies included date published online, in print, or both; the journal in which it was published; and the 5-year journal impact factor. When an abstract was not confirmed as published, authors were contacted by email to verify its publication status or, if not published, the reason for nonpublication.ResultsA total of 162 abstracts were published out of 320 presented (50.6%) at the SSR conferences from 2010 to 2015 with 59.9% (85/142) of publications occurring within two years of the conference date (not counting abstracts published prior to conference). Mean time to publication was 19 months and is calculated by excluding the 20 (12.3%) abstracts that were published prior to the conference date. The median time to publication is 13 months (25th–75th percentile: 6.25–21.75). The top two journals publishing research studies from this conference were Skeletal Radiology and The American Journal of Roentgenology. These journals accepted 72 of the 162 (44.4%) studies for publication. Of the 14 authors who responded with 17 reasons for not publishing, the most common reasons were lack of time (7–41.2%), results not important enough (4–23.5%), publication not an aim (3–17.6%), and lack of resources (3–17.6%).DiscussionAt least half of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting for the Society of Skeletal Radiology are accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The majority (59.9%) of these publications were achieved within two years of the conference presentation. The rate at which presentations are published and the journals that accept the abstracts can potentially be used to compare the importance and quality of information at conferences.

Is publication bias present in gastroenterological research? An analysis of abstracts presented at an annual congress.

BackgroundPublication bias is the tendency of investigators, reviewers, and editors to submit or accept manuscripts for publication based on their direction or strength of findings. In this study, we investigated if publication bias was present in gastroenterological research by evaluating abstracts at Americas Hepato-Pancreato-Biliary Congresses from 2011 to 2013.MethodsWe searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate the published reports of research described in these abstracts. If a publication was not found, a second investigator searched to verify nonpublication. If abstract publication status remained undetermined, authors were contacted regarding reasons for nonpublication. For articles reaching publication, the P value, study design, time to publication, citation count, and journals in which the published report appeared were recorded.ResultsOur study found that of 569 abstracts presented, 297 (52.2%) reported a P value. Of these, 254 (85.5%) contained P values supporting statistical significance. The abstracts reporting a statistically significant outcome were twice as likely to reach publication than abstracts with no significant findings (OR 2.10, 95% CI [1.06–4.14]). Overall, 243 (42.7%) abstracts reached publication. The mean time to publication was 14 months and a median time of nine months.ConclusionIn conclusion, we found evidence for publication bias in gastroenterological research. s with significant P values had a higher probability of reaching publication. More than half of abstracts presented from 2011 to 2013 failed to reach publication. Readers should take these findings into consideration when reviewing medical literature.

Two Misunderstandings About Public Justification and Religious Reasons

Two important objections have been raised against exclusivist public reason (EPR). First, it has been argued that EPR entails an unjust burden for citizens who want to appeal to non-public reasons, especially religious reasons. Second, it has been argued that EPR is based on a problematic conception of religious reasons and that it ignores the fact that religious reasons can be public as well. I defend EPR against both objections. I show that the first objection conflates two ideas of public justification (public justification as a conception of political legitimacy and public justification as an ideal of civility) and that the second objection conflates two ways to understand and identify religious reasons. Ultimately, it turns out that those who defend such objections actually share the concerns that justified EPR in the first place. In other words, if we are clear about the idea of public justification and the kind of religious reasons that EPR is really about, it appears that justificatory liberals are in fact all exclusivists.

Publication rates of podium and poster abstract presentations at the 2010 and 2011 society of gynecologic oncology conferences

ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the publication rate of oral and poster abstracts presented at the 2010 and 2011 Society of Gynecologic Oncology (SGO) conferences as well as the journals that most commonly published these studies, their 5-year impact factor, the time to publication, and the reasons for nonpublication. MethodsAbstracts presented at the 2010–2011 SGO conferences were included in this study. We searched Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed to locate published reports of these abstracts. If an abstract's full-text manuscript could not be located, an author of the conference abstract was contacted via email to inquire whether the research was published. If the research was unpublished, the authors were asked to provide the reason for nonpublication. The time to publication, journal, and journal impact factor were noted for abstracts that reached full-text publication. ResultsA total of 725 abstracts were identified, of which 386 (53%) reached publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Oral presentations were published at a higher rate than poster presentations. Most (70%) reached publication within 2 years of abstract presentation. Abstracts were published in 89 journals, but most (39%) were published in Gynecologic Oncology. The mean time to publication was 15.7 months, with a mean 5-year impact factor of 4.956. ConclusionsA 53% publication rate indicates that the SGO conference selection process favors research likely to be published and, thus, presumably of high quality. The overall publication rate is higher than that reported for many other biomedical conferences.