The fate of abstracts presented at international ophthalmology meetings: 2- and 5-year publication rates

Purpose: To investigate the 2- and 5-year publication rates of abstracts presented at major international ophthalmology meetings. Methods: We analyzed a random selection of 20% of free papers and posters presented at the 2010 meeting of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, the European Association for Vision and Eye Research, the Asia-Pacific Academy of Ophthalmology, and the 2009 European Society of Ophthalmology meeting. The PubMed (MEDLINE) database was searched to identify matching journal articles. Data collection included: topic, geographic origin, presentation type, publication status, and impact factor. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to assess odds of publication and impact factor. Results: Our analysis included 1742 research abstracts. The overall 2- and 5-year publication rates were 33.3% (n = 579) and 47.2% (n = 823), respectively. The highest publication rates were found for Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (36.1% and 51.9%, p < 0.0001), paper presentations (44.5% and 60.5%, p < 0.0001), researches from Oceania (35.8% and 57.1%, p < 0.05) and North America (36.2% and 50.5%, p < 0.05), and Basic science studies (44% and 60.3%, p < 0.01). After adjustments, higher odds of publication were shown by the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology and the American Academy of Ophthalmology meetings (p < 0.0001), papers (p < 0.0001), and Basic science (p < 0.05). The median impact factor was 3.20 (interquartile range = 1.90–3.40). Conclusion: Less than half of abstracts presented at the major ophthalmology meetings reach publication within 5 years of their initial presentation. Professionals attending meetings may consider adopting a more critical approach to the preliminary results reported in presented abstracts. Increasing publication rates and reducing potential publication bias is of interest.

Download Full-text

Is basic science falling behind? A mixed methods study of bibliometric data and expert interviews in the field of cardiovascular research

European Heart Journal ◽

10.1093/ehjci/ehaa946.3572 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽

Author(s):

M Lichtenauer

Keyword(s):

Animal Model ◽

Impact Factor ◽

Basic Science ◽

Science Studies ◽

Clinical Science ◽

Mixed Methods Study ◽

Cardiovascular Research ◽

Project Costs ◽

Grant Money ◽

Number Of Authors

Abstract Introduction Scientists in the field of cardiovascular research face many difficulties today and find themselves under considerable pressure to be successful with their projects and publish their results on a regular basis (the publish or perish aphorism). Purpose The objective of this mixed methods study that included quantitative and qualitative research methods was to analyse prospects of scientific success and how scientists see opportunities, risks and how they try to adapt to the current publication system. Methods An analysis of all publications that were published by our department in the years 2014–2019 (total of 104 publications) was performed. Publications were allocated to the sub-categories basic science, clinical science, register studies/database studies and others (letters, reviews, editorials). Further specific characteristics (impact factor, number of authors/institutions, utilization of an animal model and project costs) were also collected. Furthermore, a total of 14 interviews with experts in the field of cardiovascular research were conducted. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. For quantitative text analysis MaxQDA software and the method proposed by Philipp Mayring was used. Results When analysing the publication output of our department we found that achieved impact factors points were equally distributed between basic science, clinical science and register/database studies. Project costs were considerable higher for basic science studies compared to clinical studies and even more to register/database studies (p=0.0001). A correlation between costs and impact factor was found for basic science studies only (r=0.66, p=0.004). A multivariable regression analysis showed that project costs, number of authors and the use of an animal model, but not the number of institutions, was associated with a higher impact factor. Experts in the field shared the opinion that it might be “easier” to be successful with clinical science studies as they require less resources such as grant money, personnel and technical equipment. Moreover, upcoming risks such as competition for grant money, pressure to publish results, inadequacy of the impact factor system, securing ones job, rising publication costs and more pressure of time due to patient care, research and teaching duties for academic personnel were also highlighted to worsen the situation. Conclusion Based on own data and the views of experts it seems much more effort- and cost-efficient to pursue projects in clinical science. Researchers in the current academic system are pressured by multiple risks. After interpretation of the obtained quantitative and qualitative material, one could hypothesize that it might be easier to be successful with focussing on clinical studies when starting ones research career. These data give support to the concerns that the field of basic science might fall behind and less young scientists would opt for a career path in this field. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Download Full-text

From Basic Science Studies to Clinical Trials: What Recent Acupuncture Research Tells Us

Medical Acupuncture ◽

10.1089/acu.2011.0831 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 24 (1) ◽

pp. 10-14 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Shifen Xu ◽

Lixing Lao

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Basic Science ◽

Science Studies ◽

Acupuncture Research

Download Full-text

Publication rates of abstracts presented at the annual scientific meetings held by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences in 2011 and 2016

Journal of Forensic Sciences ◽

10.1111/1556-4029.14904 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Nurdan Sezgin ◽

Sukriye Karadayi ◽

Beytullah Karadayi

Keyword(s):

American Academy ◽

Annual Scientific ◽

Forensic Sciences ◽

Publication Rates ◽

Scientific Meetings

Download Full-text

Scientific papers presented orally at radiology meetings—trends in subspecialty publication rates and adaptations associated with the highest impact factor journal publications

Quantitative Imaging in Medicine and Surgery ◽

10.21037/qims.2016.08.10 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. 462-465 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Will Loughborough ◽

Helen Dale ◽

Adam H. Youssef ◽

James H. Wareham ◽

Mark A. Rodrigues ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Impact Factor Journal ◽

Publication Rates ◽

Journal Publications ◽

Scientific Papers

Download Full-text

1999 Volvo Award Winner in Basic Science Studies

Spine ◽

10.1097/00007632-199912010-00002 ◽

1999 ◽

Vol 24 (23) ◽

pp. 2419 ◽

Cited By ~ 259

Author(s):

Kotaro Nishida ◽

James D. Kang ◽

Lars G. Gilbertson ◽

Seong-Hwan Moon ◽

Jun-Kyo Suh ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Basic Science ◽

Science Studies ◽

Award Winner

Download Full-text

What have we learned from basic science studies on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis?

European Respiratory Review ◽

10.1183/16000617.0029-2019 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 28 (153) ◽

pp. 190029 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Toyoshi Yanagihara ◽

Seidai Sato ◽

Chandak Upagupta ◽

Martin Kolb

Keyword(s):

Extracellular Matrix ◽

Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽

Pulmonary Fibrosis ◽

Cellular Senescence ◽

Basic Science ◽

Science Studies ◽

Cell Types ◽

Age Related ◽

Tremendous Progress

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis is a fatal age-related lung disease characterised by progressive and irreversible scarring of the lung. Although the details are not fully understood, there has been tremendous progress in understanding the pathogenesis of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, which has led to the identification of many new potential therapeutic targets. In this review we discuss several of these advances with a focus on genetic susceptibility and cellular senescence primarily affecting epithelial cells, activation of profibrotic pathways, disease-enhancing fibrogenic cell types and the role of the remodelled extracellular matrix.

Download Full-text

Microfracture Versus Drilling of Articular Cartilage Defects: A Systematic Review of the Basic Science Evidence

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1177/2325967120945313 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 8 (8) ◽

pp. 232596712094531 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Matthew J. Kraeutler ◽

Gianna M. Aliberti ◽

Anthony J. Scillia ◽

Eric C. McCarty ◽

Mary K. Mulcahey

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Articular Cartilage ◽

Cartilage Repair ◽

Basic Science ◽

Science Studies ◽

Cartilage Regeneration ◽

Cartilage Defects ◽

Repair Tissue ◽

Marrow Stimulation

Background: Microfracture (MFx) is one of the most common techniques used for the treatment of articular cartilage defects, although recently there has been a trend toward the use of drilling rather than MFx for the treatment of these defects. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of basic science studies to determine the effect of microfracture versus drilling for articular cartilage repair. Study Design: Systematic review. Methods: A systematic review was performed by searching PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and EMBASE to identify basic science studies comparing outcomes of MFx versus drilling. The search phrase used was microfracture AND (drilling OR microdrilling). Inclusion criteria were basic science studies that directly compared the effect of MFx versus drilling on subchondral bone, bone marrow stimulation, and cartilage regeneration. Results: A total of 7 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. Of these, 4 studies were performed in rabbits, 1 study in sheep, and 2 studies in humans. All of the included studies investigated cartilage repair in the knee. In the animal studies, microfracture produced fractured and compacted bone and led to increased osteocyte necrosis compared with drilling. Deep drilling (6 mm) was superior to both shallow drilling (2 mm) and MFx in terms of increased subchondral hematoma with greater access to marrow stroma, improved cartilage repair, and increased mineralized bone. However, the overall quality of cartilage repair tissue was poor regardless of marrow stimulation technique. In 2 studies that investigated repair tissue after MFx and/or drilling in human patients with osteoarthritis and cartilage defects, the investigators found that cartilage repair tissue did not achieve the quality of normal hyaline articular cartilage. Conclusion: In the limited basic science studies that are available, deep drilling of cartilage defects in the knee resulted in improved biological features compared with MFx, including less damage to the subchondral bone and greater access to marrow stroma. Regardless of marrow stimulation technique, the overall quality of cartilage regeneration was poor and did not achieve the characteristics of native hyaline cartilage. Overall, there is a general lack of basic science literature comparing microfracture versus drilling for focal chondral defects.

Download Full-text