-
Current Medical Research and Opinion Jul 2017Timely publication of data is important for the medical community and provides a valuable contribution to data disclosure. The objective of this study was to identify...
OBJECTIVE
Timely publication of data is important for the medical community and provides a valuable contribution to data disclosure. The objective of this study was to identify and evaluate times to acceptance and publication for peer-reviewed manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
Key publication metrics for published manuscripts, reviews, and letters to the editor were identified by eight Amgen publications professionals. Data for publications submitted between 1 January 2013 and 1 November 2015 were extracted from a proprietary internal publication-tracking database. Variables included department initiating the study, publication type, number of submissions per publication, and the total number of weeks from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication.
RESULTS
A total of 337 publications were identified, of which 300 (89%) were manuscripts. Time from submission to acceptance and publication was generally similar between clinical and real-world evidence (e.g. observational and health economics studies) publications. Median (range) time from first submission to acceptance was 23.4 (0.2-226.2) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to online (early-release) publication was 29.7 (2.4-162.6) weeks. Median (range) time from first submission to final (print) publication was 36.2 (2.8-230.8) weeks. Time from first submission to acceptance, online publication, and final publication increased accordingly with number of submissions required for acceptance, with similar times noted between each subsequent submission.
CONCLUSIONS
Analysis of a single-company publication database showed that the median time for manuscripts to be fully published after initial submission was 36.2 weeks, and time to publication increased accordingly with the number of submissions. Causes for multiple submissions and time from clinical trial completion to first submission were not assessed; these were limitations of the study. Nonetheless, publication planners should consider these results when evaluating timelines and identifying potential journals early in the publication planning process.
Topics: Humans; Peer Review, Research; Publications; Publishing; Time Factors
PubMed: 27977312
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2016.1271778 -
MBio Dec 2013The publication of scientific information that derives from dual use research of concern (DURC) poses major problems for journals because it brings into conflict the...
The publication of scientific information that derives from dual use research of concern (DURC) poses major problems for journals because it brings into conflict the benefits of free access to data and the need to prevent misuse of that information by others. Recently, a group of authors and a major scientific journal addressed the issue of publishing information on a newly discovered, highly lethal toxin that can be delivered to large populations and for which there are no available countermeasures. The journal addressed this conflict by permitting the redaction of information that is normally considered essential for publication. This action establishes a precedent for redaction of sensitive data that also provides an example of responsible scientific publishing. However, this precedent leaves many questions unanswered and suggests a need for a discussion by all stakeholders of scientific information so as to derive normative standards for the publication of DURC.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Editorial Policies; Information Dissemination; Periodicals as Topic; Publications
PubMed: 24381302
DOI: 10.1128/mBio.00991-13 -
Otolaryngology--head and Neck Surgery :... Jun 2017Objectives (1) Evaluate peer-reviewed publications regarding education in otolaryngology since 2000. (2) Analyze publication trends as compared with overall...
Objectives (1) Evaluate peer-reviewed publications regarding education in otolaryngology since 2000. (2) Analyze publication trends as compared with overall otolaryngology publications. Study Design Bibliometric analysis. Setting Academic medical center. Subjects and Methods A search for articles regarding education in otolaryngology from 2000 to 2015 was performed with MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, yielding 1220 articles; 362 relevant publications were categorized by topic, subspecialty, subject, article type, and funding source. Impact factors for each journal by year were obtained, and trends of each category over time were analyzed. These were then compared with publication numbers and impact factors for all otolaryngology journals. Results From 2000 to 2015, publications in otolaryngology education increased more rapidly than the field of otolaryngology overall. The most published topics included operative skills training, surgical simulation, and professionalism/career development. Recently there has been a decline in publications related to residency administration and duty hours relative to other topics. Only 12.2% of publications reported a funding source, and only 12.2% of studies were controlled. Conclusion Recent trends in otolaryngology literature reflect an increasing focus on education; however, this work is underfunded and often lacks high-quality evidence.
Topics: Bibliometrics; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Otolaryngology; Peer Review, Research; Publishing; Research Design
PubMed: 28025905
DOI: 10.1177/0194599816684098 -
Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 2006A review of abstracts presented at nine annual meetings of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists was undertaken to determine the average time to... (Review)
Review
RATIONALE FOR THE STUDY
A review of abstracts presented at nine annual meetings of the American College of Veterinary Anesthesiologists was undertaken to determine the average time to publication and the differences found between conference abstracts and final publications. Concerns about and advantages of using such abstracts in our teaching are considered.
METHODOLOGY
Conference proceedings during the years 1990 through 1999 were considered. Key word and author searches using two common search engines were carried out to find whether abstracts presented had been published. The original article or its abstract was reviewed for consistency with the conference abstract.
RESULTS
Of 283 abstracts examined, 73.5% were published in journals as full articles. The overall delay (+/-SD) in publication was 24.3 +/- 21.0 months. Common reasons for not publishing included too little time, more interest in carrying out the work than in writing it up, and other more demanding tasks. Authors indicated the intention of completing a submission on approximately 10% of the unpublished abstracts. The final articles reviewed showed major differences in key aspects from the abstract presented in 7% of the cases. In half of these cases, clinical action could have been affected by a change in emphasis of the conclusions.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the delay in publication of research, peer review of standardized abstracts should be encouraged. This material can be used to introduce students to new drugs, techniques, and results that may not otherwise become available until after their graduation. However, caution must be exercised in using this information, both because significant differences were noted in final publications and because unpublished research may be poorly interpreted at the time of presentation. This study emphasizes the value of critical review and lifelong learning in our careers.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Congresses as Topic; Humans; Peer Review; Publications; Publishing; Societies; Time Factors; Veterinary Medicine
PubMed: 16767655
DOI: 10.3138/jvme.33.1.145 -
Intensive Care Medicine Feb 2007
Topics: Duplicate Publications as Topic; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 17252224
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-007-0539-9 -
Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology.... Aug 2017To evaluate the publication rate of submitted abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2010 Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) Annual Meeting in peer-reviewed...
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the publication rate of submitted abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2010 Canadian Ophthalmological Society (COS) Annual Meeting in peer-reviewed journals.
DESIGN
A retrospective analysis and literature search of abstracts presented at the 2010 COS Annual Meeting.
METHODS
Abstracts accepted as an oral presentation or poster from the 2010 COS Annual Meeting were tabulated by type of presentation (oral vs poster), subspecialty, study design, number of authors, and principal investigator's institution. A PubMed search was conducted for each abstract by key word, first author, and last author. The year of publication, journal, and impact factor were recorded for identified publications. Publication rate was calculated by type of presentation, subspecialty, study design, number of authors, and institution.
RESULTS
A total of 175 abstracts were presented at the 2010 COS Annual Meeting. There were 105 oral (60%) and 70 poster (40%) presentations. The overall publication rate was 45.7%; 49.5% for oral presentations and 40.0% for posters. Cornea (57.6%) and public health (54.5%) had the highest publication rates of all subspecialties. Randomized control trials (71.4%) and cohort studies (70.0%) had higher publication rates than other study designs. Overall, 28.8% of abstracts were published in the Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology. The average impact factor of all publications was 2.73.
CONCLUSION
Of abstracts presented at the 2010 COS Annual Meeting, 45.7% were published within 5 years after the conference. This publication rate is within the upper end of previously reported meeting publication rates for medical societies.
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Humans; Journal Impact Factor; Ophthalmology; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing; Retrospective Studies; Societies, Medical
PubMed: 28774514
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.11.033 -
Proceedings of the National Academy of... Jul 2003
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Duplicate Publications as Topic; Internet; Periodicals as Topic; Publishing
PubMed: 12851455
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1532911100 -
PloS One 2019To examine 1) the publication rate of registered otology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2) the public availability of the results, 3) the study characteristics associated...
OBJECTIVES
To examine 1) the publication rate of registered otology trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2) the public availability of the results, 3) the study characteristics associated with publication, and 4) the time to publication after trial completion.
BACKGROUND
Publication bias, the publication or non-publication of research findings, depending on the nature and direction of results, is accountable for wrong treatment decisions. The extent of publication bias in otology trials has not been evaluated.
METHODS
All registered otology trials were extracted from ClinicalTrials.gov with completion date up to December 2015. A search strategy was used to identify corresponding publications up to June 2017, providing at least 18 months to publish the results after trial completion. Characteristics were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. Regression models were used to examine study characteristics associated with publication or non-publication.
RESULTS
From the 419 trials identified on ClinicalTrials.gov, 225 (53.7%) corresponding publications were found in PubMed. Among these, 109 (48.4%) publications were cited on ClinicalTrials.gov and 124 (55.1%) articles reported the National Clinical Trial registry number. For 36 (8.6%) trials, results were only reported in ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials with a biological intervention were more likely to be published than studies involving drugs (odds ratio (OR) 10.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26-86.22, P = 0.030). Trials funded by industry were less likely to be published (OR 0.46, CI 0.25-0.84, P = 0.011). The median trial duration was 20 months (interquartile range (IQR) 26 months), and median time from trial completion to publication was 24 months (IQR 22 months).
CONCLUSION
In 37.7% of the registered otology trials the results remained unpublished, even several years after trial completion. With little citations on ClinicalTrials.gov and low reporting of the Clinical Trial registry number, the accessibility is limited. Our findings show that there is room for improvement in accuracy of trial registration and publication of results, in order to diminish publication bias in otology studies.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Cross-Sectional Studies; Databases, Factual; Humans; Otolaryngology; Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 31291350
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219458 -
Turkish Neurosurgery 2017National and international society meetings are suitable mediums at which diverse research topics from basic, clinical and translational sciences can be presented to an...
AIM
National and international society meetings are suitable mediums at which diverse research topics from basic, clinical and translational sciences can be presented to an audience of peers. In this study, our purpose was to evaluate publication rates of presentations in the last recent four years" annual scientific meetings of Turkish Neurosurgical Society (TNS).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Abstracts of both podium and poster presentations were retrieved from the congress booklets of TNS. Study timeline included TNS annual scientific meetings of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014. Abstract titles and author names of the abstracts were searched in Pubmed/MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases.
RESULTS
In total, 3105 presentations to an audience took place in the annual scientific meetings of TNS organized between 2011 and 2014. Acceptance rate of these studies by peer-reviewed scientific journals was 326 (10.5%). In sub-analysis, there were 2408 electronic posters (148 accepted, 6.1%), 195 poster presentations with discussion (44 accepted, 22.6%), and 502 podium presentations (134 accepted, 26.7%).
CONCLUSION
Acceptance rate of podium presentations in annual scientific meeting of TNS is at comparable levels with similar organizations on the world. However, the rate is lower for poster presentations.
Topics: Congresses as Topic; Humans; Neurosurgery; Publications; Publishing; Research Report; Societies, Medical; Turkey
PubMed: 27593772
DOI: 10.5137/1019-5149.JTN.14862-15.1 -
Pain Medicine (Malden, Mass.) Jul 2019
Topics: Publications; Publishing
PubMed: 30462306
DOI: 10.1093/pm/pny234