Reasons For Non-publication Research Articles

Conference presentation in palliative medicine: predictors of subsequent publication

ObjectivesConcerns have been raised about poor-quality palliative care research and low publication rate from conference abstracts. The study objectives: to estimate the publication rate for European Association for Palliative Care...

Publication Rates in Podium and Poster Presentations at the 2012-2014 American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Annual Meetings

BackgroundSubspecialty conferences are an important forum for disseminating the latest research relevant to clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to identify publication rates in podium and poster abstracts for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) Annual Meeting and to identify the most common journals of publication and the reasons for nonpublication. MethodsSix hundred ten accepted abstracts (182 podium presentations, 428 posters) from the 2012-2014 AAHKS meetings were searched using Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. If an abstract could not be found after efforts by multiple searchers, the first author was emailed to determine where the research was published or why it was not published. For articles that were published, the journal, time to publication, and journal impact factor were noted. ResultsThe overall rate of publication was 71% (436/610). Podium presentations (164/182, 90%) were published at a higher rate than posters (271/428, 63%). The most common journal of publication was the Journal of Arthroplasty (218/436, 50%), followed by Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research (77/436, 18%) and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (40/436, 9%). Average time to publication was 14.5 months (range, −4 to 44 months) from the date of the conference in which it was presented. ConclusionPresentations at the AAHKS annual meeting have an impressive rate of publication. The research presented at the meeting is impactful and high quality, warranting consideration for future publication.

Public Reason and Religion: The Theo-Ethical Equilibrium Argument for Restraint

Most public reason theorists believe that citizens are under a ‘duty of restraint’. Citizens must refrain from supporting laws for which they have only non-public reasons, such as religious reasons. The theo-ethical equilibrium argument purports to show that theists should accept this duty, on the basis of their religious convictions. Theists’ beliefs about God’s nature should lead them to doubt moral claims for which they cannot find secular grounds, and to refrain from imposing such claims upon others. If successful, this argument would defuse prominent objections to public reason liberalism. This paper assesses the theo-ethical equilibrium argument, with a specific focus on Christian citizens. I argue that Christians should seek theo-ethical equilibrium, but need not endorse the duty of restraint. I establish this in part through examining the important theological concept of natural law. That discussion also points to more general and persistent problems with defining ‘public reasons’.

Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry.

BackgroundIndustry commissions contracting companies to perform network meta-analysis for health technology assessment (HTA) and reimbursement submissions. Our objective was to estimate the number of network meta-analyses performed by consulting companies contracted by industry, to assess whether they were published, and to explore reasons for non-publication.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE for network meta-analyses of randomized trials. Papers were included if they had authors affiliated with any contracting company. All identified contracting companies as well as additional ones from the list of the exhibitors at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, an annual meeting that representatives from many contracting companies attend and exhibit at, were surveyed regarding conduct and publication of network meta-analyses.ResultsIn 162 of 822 (20%) network meta-analysis papers, authors were affiliated to 66 contracting companies. Another 36 contracting companies were identified by the exhibitors list. Three companies had no contact information and six merged with others, therefore 93 companies were contacted. Thirty seven out of ninety three (40%) companies responded, and 19 indicated that they had performed a total of 476 network meta-analyses, but only 102 (21%) papers were published.Thirteen companies that disclosed to have conducted 174 network meta-analyses (45 published) provided reasons for non-publication. Of the 129 still unpublished meta-analyses, for 40 there were plans for future publication, for 37 the sponsor did not allow publication, for 16 the contracting companies did not plan to publish the meta-analysis, for another 23 plans were unclear, and the remaining 13 were used as HTA submission.The protocol of the network meta-analysis was publically available from 11/162 (6.8%) network meta-analyses published by authors affiliated with contracting companies.ConclusionsThere is a prolific sector of professional contracting companies that perform network meta-analyses. Industry commissions many network meta-analyses, but most are not registered before or published after analyses in the scientific literature. Mechanisms to improve publication rates of network meta-analysis commissioned by industry are warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0377-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Devenir des communications libres présentées au congrès de la SIFUD-PP (2006–2012)

The subjects presented at scientific congresses often remain confidential because of the non-indexation of the communications. A subsequent publication is necessary for the dissemination of knowledge. The value of a congress is somehow rated by the level of its publications. To analyze, quantitatively and qualitatively, the fate of the communications presented orally at the annual meeting of the SIFUD-PP between 2006 and 2012. From the authors' names and the title of the communications presented orally at congresses between 2006 and 2012, we investigated if those communications had resulted as an indexed publication PubMed/Medline until April 2015. We studied anonymously the correlation between the data presented in the communication provided at the SIFUD-PP congress and the data published in the final article. We evaluated the "value" of the publication according to the language of publication (French/English), the ranking of the magazine (A or B versus others), and the number of citations of the article in Google-Scholar. A total of 270 oral communications were presented at the SIFUD congress between 2006 and 2012, so an average of 38.5 (±15) per year. Globally, 110articles (40%) have been published in an indexed journal PubMed/MedLine to date (April 2015). Note that 10articles of the oral communications (8%) were published before the congress. The average time of publication was 22months±15months. In terms of the language of publication, 79articles (71%) were published in English magazines. They were published in 31different journals (49articles [44%] in urology, 14articles [12%] in gynecology, 12articles [10%] in urogynecology, 11articles [10%] in coloproctology, 16articles [14%] in neuro-urology and physical medicine and rehabilitation, 3articles [2%] in sexology). Sixty-three articles (57%) were published in journals with an impact factor (IF) higher than 2 and 39articles (35%) were published in journals of rank A or B. The rate of publications of oral communications varies according to specialties and the type of the congress. For example, the rate of the published communications at the ICS Congress (International Continence Society) in 2003 was 61% and of the AFU (French Association of Urology) in 2000, was 34.5%. The rate of publication of the oral abstracts presented at the SIFUD (40% over the period 2006-2012) is comparable to other national congresses but slightly inferior to those of international congresses. Several hypotheses may explain the non-publication of the oral communications (quitting the project, communication about preliminary results, refused publication by many journals) and unfortunately we do not have those results. We should get back individually to the submitters to know the reasons for non-publication of their works. In the end, 40% of the oral communication presented at the annual congress of the SIFUD were published in an indexed journals PubMed/MedLine. Seventy-one percent of them are in English. 4.

Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Academic journals increasingly request a full disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI). The Committee for Publication Ethics provides editors with guidance about the course of action in the case of suspected non-disclosure. No prior study has examined the extent to which journal articles on psychosocial interventions disclose CoI, and how journal editors process requests to examine suspected undisclosed CoI. Four internationally disseminated psychosocial interventions were examined. 136 articles related to an intervention, co-authored by intervention developers and published in health sciences journals were retrieved as requiring a CoI statement. Two editors refused consent to be included in the study. COI disclosures and editor responses were coded for 134 articles. Overall, 92/134 (71%) of all articles were found to have absent, incomplete or partly misleading CoI disclosures. Disclosure rates for the four programs varied significantly between 11% and 73%. Journal editors were contacted about 92 published articles with no CoI disclosure or a disclosure that was considered problematic. In 65/92 (71%) of all cases the editors published an ‘erratum’ or ‘corrigendum’. In 16 of these cases the journal had mishandled a submitted disclosure. The most frequent reason for non-publication of an erratum was that the journal had no disclosure policy at the time of the publication (16 cases). Consumers of research on psychosocial interventions published in peer-reviewed journals cannot currently assume that CoI disclosures are adequate and complete. More efforts are needed to achieve transparency.

Why are medical and health-related studies not being published? A systematic review of reasons given by investigators.

ObjectiveAbout half of medical and health-related studies are not published. We conducted a systematic review of reports on reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and SCOPUS (until 13/09/2013), and references of identified articles were searched to identify reports of surveys that provided data on reasons given by investigators for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission and reasons for non-publication was calculated using the number of unpublished studies as the denominator. Because of heterogeneity across studies, quantitative pooling was not conducted. Exploratory subgroup analyses were conducted.ResultsWe included 54 survey reports. Data from 38 included reports were available to estimate proportions of at least one reason given for not publishing studies. The proportion of non-submission among unpublished studies ranged from 55% to 100%, with a median of 85%. The reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies included: lack of time or low priority (median 33%), studies being incomplete (median 15%), study not for publication (median 14%), manuscript in preparation or under review (median 12%), unimportant or negative result (median 12%), poor study quality or design (median 11%), fear of rejection (median 12%), rejection by journals (median 6%), author or co-author problems (median 10%), and sponsor or funder problems (median 9%). In general, the frequency of reasons given for non-publication was not associated with the source of unpublished studies, study design, or time when a survey was conducted.ConclusionsNon-submission of studies for publication remains the main cause of non-publication of studies. Measures to reduce non-publication of studies and alternative models of research dissemination need to be developed to address the main reasons given by investigators for not publishing their studies, such as lack of time or low priority and fear of being rejected by journals.

'Rawls'' Public Reason Reinterpreted: Construction, Reconstruction, and Overlapping Consensus of a Political Conception of Justicee

Public reason is an important concept in Rawls’ political liberalism. As Rawls puts it, ‘it is the reason of the public and its subject is the public good concerning questions of fundamental political justice, which deals with constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice.’ He further explains that ‘the content of public reason is given by a family of political conceptions of justice’ and that ‘a citizen can engage in public reason when he or she deliberates within a framework of what he or she sincerely regards as the most reasonable political conception of justice.’ Rawls’ specification of public reason assumes that a political conception of justice is already given. He does not attempt to explain the role of public reason in the process of constructing a political conception of justice. Rawls is unclear on the distinction between the two roles of public reason, theoretical construction and practical interpretation. In my paper I shall argue that there should be two stages of public reason, theoretical construction and practical interpretation of a political conception of justice. In the theoretical stage, public reason is to construct a political conception of justice, with the help of two moral powers, the capacity for a conception of the good and the capacity for a sense of justice, within the condition of original position as the device of public representation. Through this stage a political conception of justice appears. And then in the practical stage, public reason gets its content from the political conception of justice that we obtained in the theoretical process. In this understanding, public reason is primarily independent from a political conception of justice and becomes the most fundamental capability for constructing a political conception of justice. Thus a political conception of justice is always theoretically challenged by public reason through cultivating new understanding and interpretation, that opens to reconstruction process, even if it has reached an overlapping consensus from the citizens divided by comprehensive doctrines as the source of nonpublic reasons in civil society.

Avoiding waste of research resource: cohort study of publication rate for funded studies from a major UK research funder

Objectives Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies funded are never published. This study aimed to investigate what percen- tage of NIHR HTA programme funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal Health Technology Assessment, (the monograph series); and to explore reasons for non-publication. Methods 628 projects were included: 582 (92.7%) had published a monograph; 19 (3.0%) were expected to publish a mono- graph; 13 (2.1%) were discontinued studies and would not publish; 12 (1.9%) submitted a report which did not lead to publication as a monograph; and two (0.3%) did not submit ar eport. Reasons why projects failed to complete included: failure to recruit; issues concerning the organisation hosting the research; drug licensing issues; staffing issues; and access to data. Overall 95.7% of HTA studies either have published or will publish a monograph: 94% for those commissioned in 2002 or before and 98% for those commissioned after 2002. Conclusions Monographs are published for a very high percentage of NIHR HTA projects. Advantages of this model of pub- lishing include: avoidance of publication bias and research waste; while enhancing accessibility and trans- parency of findings.

Fate of abstracts presented at the 2008 congress of the French Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Society

Publication of abstracts presented at a scientific meeting is a measure of the latter's scientific quality. ObjectivesTo evaluate the publication rate for abstracts presented at the 2008 congress of the French Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine Society (SOFMER) and to identify (i) factors that were predictive of publication and (ii) the main reasons for non-publication. MethodsWe searched the PubMed database for publications related to SOFMER 2008 abstracts. We then screened the abstracts’ characteristics for features that were predictive of publication. Authors of abstracts that had not been published were contacted (by e-mail) in order to establish the reason(s) for non-publication. ResultsOf the 231 abstracts presented at SOFMER 2008, 49 (21.2%) had been published. Original studies submitted by French university teams were more likely to be published. Most of the unpublished abstracts had never been submitted to scientific journals. A heavy workload (limiting the time available for drafting a publication) and unwillingness to submit incomplete or preliminary studies were the main barriers to submission for publication. ConclusionSOFMER 2008s abstract publication rate was lower than those of other national or international medical congresses. University status and the performance of original research were predictive of publication.

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study

ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA...

A Duty to Listen

It is a common line in democratic theory that citizens must only offer reasons into political discourse. This is a civic obligation that is traditionally taken by political liberals to fall on the citizen as speaker—as an individual who forwards political arguments. I argue here that taking proper account of the epistemic complexity involved in distinguishing public from nonpublic reasons entails robust civic obligations on listen- ers. Thus, those who accept this obligation for speakers must accept a corresponding civic obligation on listeners—a duty to attempt to identify public reasons within others' presented arguments, even if those arguments appear nonpublic at first blush.

Timely and Complete Publication of Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomized Controlled Trials

Little is known about the extent and nature of publication bias in economic evaluations. Our objective was to determine whether economic evaluations are subject to publication bias by considering whether economic data are as likely to be reported, and reported as promptly, as effectiveness data. Trials that intended to conduct an economic analysis and ended before 2008 were identified in the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) register; a random sample of 100 trials was retrieved. Fifty comparator trials were randomly drawn from those not identified as intending to conduct an economic study. The trial start and end dates, estimated sample size and funder type were extracted. For trials planning economic evaluations, effectiveness and economic publications were sought; publication dates and journal impact factors were extracted. Effectiveness abstracts were assessed for whether they reached a firm conclusion that one intervention was most effective. Primary investigators were contacted about reasons for non-publication of results, or reasons for differential publication strategies for effectiveness and economic results. Trials planning an economic study were more likely to be funded by government (p=0.01) and larger (p=0.003) than other trials. The trials planning an economic evaluation had a mean of 6.5 (range 2.7-13.2) years since the trial end in which to publish their results. Effectiveness results were reported by 70 %, while only 43 % published economic evaluations (p<0.001). Reasons for non-publication of economic results included the intervention being ineffective, and staffing issues. Funding source, time since trial end and length of study were not associated with a higher probability of publishing the economic evaluation. However, studies that were small or of unknown size were significantly less likely to publish economic evaluations than large studies (p<0.001). The authors' confidence in labelling one intervention clearly most effective did not affect the probability of publication. The mean time to publication was 0.7years longer for cost-effectiveness data than for effectiveness data where both were published (p=0.001). The median journal impact factor was 1.6 points higher for effectiveness publications than for the corresponding economic publications (p=0.01). Reasons for publishing in different journals included editorial decision making and the additional time that economic evaluation takes to conduct. Trials that intend to conduct an economic analysis are less likely to report economic data than effectiveness data. Where economic results do appear, they are published later, and in journals with lower impact factors. These results suggest that economic output may be more susceptible than effectiveness data to publication bias. Funders, grant reviewers and trialists themselves should ensure economic evaluations are prioritized and adequately staffed to avoid potential problems with bias.

The fate of abstracts presented at annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland from 1993 to 2007

Although the presentation of original research to learned societies is valuable, the target should be publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, the strength of a meeting may be assessed by the rate of the subsequent publication of papers from the presented abstracts. We conducted an analysis of abstracts presented at consecutive annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery (SCTS) in Great Britain and Ireland over a 15-year period. Abstract books and other documentation from the 1993-2007 meetings were reviewed; abstracts from other major Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings held in 2007 were also reviewed. Medline was searched to identify the peer-reviewed publications arising from each work presented. For abstracts presented at SCTS in 2003-07, the factors potentially associated with publication were analysed by logistic regression. If no publications were identified, authors were contacted through a standardized email questionnaire to ascertain its status and reasons for non-publication. Over the 15-year period, 909 abstracts were presented at the SCTS meetings. The rate of publication rose from ~30% in the mid-1990s to consistently >60% from recent meetings, with a high of 81.3% from 2006. However, in comparison with other Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings in 2007, the chance of subsequent publication from SCTS (66.7%) was lower than from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (75.0%), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (83.9%) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (72.5%) meetings. For abstracts presented at the last five SCTS meetings, publication was most commonly in a speciality journal (56.3%) and the median time for publication was 15 months (range -24 to 63 months) with 14 papers published prior to presentation at the meeting. On regression analysis, the only factor associated with publication was the study design comparing randomized trials and systematic reviews with other types of study (P < 0.01). Of the 90 unpublished abstracts, 48 (53.3%) authors replied to an email questionnaire revealing that 41 (85.4%) were never submitted for publication. The most common reasons given were low priority (29.6%) and low likelihood of acceptance (24.1%). In recent years, the annual meeting of the Society has become a forum for the presentation of high-quality research that usually withstands peer-review, most commonly in a speciality journal. The rate of publication has increased to consistently >60%, although those that remain unpublished are generally never submitted. This compares favourably with national meetings of other surgical societies, although it is lower than other major cardiothoracic meetings which have an affiliated journal. At a time when it has been suggested that medical research in the UK is in decline, cardiothoracic surgery appears to be thriving.

Timely and complete publication of economic evaluations alongside randomised controlled trials

AimsTo determine whether economic evaluations are subject to publication bias by considering whether economic data are as likely to be reported, and reported as promptly, as effectiveness data.MethodsTrials that intended...

The Ethics of Reasoning from Conjecture

An important objection to political liberalism is that it provides no means by which to decide conflicts between public and non-public reasons. This article develops John Rawls’ idea of ‘reasoning from conjecture’ as one way to argue for a commitment to public reason. Reasoning from conjecture is a form of non-public justification that allows political liberals to reason from within the comprehensive views of at least some unreasonable citizens. After laying out the basic features of this form of non-public justification, this article responds to three objections based on concerns about insincerity, cultural imperialism, and the epistemic authority of those who reason from conjecture.

The Ethics of Reasoning from Conjecture

An important objection to political liberalism is that it provides no means by which to decide conflicts between public and non-public reasons. This article develops John Rawls’s idea of reasoning from as one way to argue for a commitment to public reason. Reasoning from conjecture is a form of nonpublic justification that allows political liberals to reason from within the comprehensive views of at least some unreasonable citizens. After laying out the basic features of this form of nonpublic justification, this article responds to three objections based on concerns about insincerity, cultural imperialism, and the epistemic authority of those who reason from conjecture.

Are presentations of abstracts at EGPRN meetings followed by publication?

Background: Research presented at scientific meetings is inaccessible to clinicians, unless the findings are subsequently published in a journal. Aims: To assess the publication rate of studies presented at 10 European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) meetings between 1999 and 2006. Methods: Survey by e-mail or postal questionnaire among all presenters. Results: Information was obtained on 251 presentations (response rate 60%). In total, 113 out of these 251 (45%) presentations had been published. However, only 60% of the research findings were published in English Medline-listed journals, whereas 20% were not Medline-listed. The most frequently cited reason for non-publication was that the paper had not been submitted yet at time of follow up (103 responses). The main reason for non-submission was that the research presented had not been completed yet.Conclusion: Presentations at EGPRN meetings commonly concern research ideas or ongoing research. In this light, the ratio of published work to presented work compares well with the corresponding ratios found for international meetings in other specialist fields. This survey was also meant as an audit of the EGPRN meetings and gives better insight in needs for future strategy.

Publication Bias and the Efficacy of Antidepressants

Publication Bias and the Efficacy of Antidepressants

A Viewpoint on Evidence-based Health Informatics, Based on a Pilot Survey on Evaluation Studies in Health Care Informatics

Concerned about evidence-based health informatics, the authors conducted a limited pilot survey attempting to determine how many IT evaluation studies in health care are never published, and why. A survey distributed to 722 academics had a low response rate, with 136 respondents giving instructive comments on 217 evaluation studies. Of those studies, half were published in international journals, and more than one-third were never published. Reasons for not publishing (with multiple reasons per study possible) included: “results not of interest for others” (1/3 of all studies), “publication in preparation” (1/3), “no time for publication” (1/5), “limited scientific quality of study” (1/6), “political or legal reasons” (1/7), and “study only conducted for internal use” (1/8). Those reasons for non-publication in health informatics resembled those reported in other fields. Publication bias (preference for positive studies) did not appear to be a major issue. The authors believe that widespread application of guidelines in conducting health informatics evaluation studies and utilization of a registry for evaluation study results could improve the evidence base of the field.