Factors Predictive of Oral Abstract Being Published: Is Gender Disparity Playing a Role?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 16-17
Author(s):  
Ankita Kapoor ◽  
Mehul P. Patel ◽  
Arjun Khunger ◽  
Mazen Jizzini ◽  
Mohammad Ammad Ud Din ◽  
...  

Introduction: It remains unclear what percentage of abstracts proceed to manuscript publication and the characteristics that predict successful publication. This study aimed to determine factors associated with successful peer-reviewed publications following oral presentation at the American Society of Hematology (ASH) annual meeting. Methods: All oral abstract presentations (n=621) in the hematological malignancy category from 2016 ASH annual meeting were included in the study. Abstract publication was confirmed by searching for the publicly listed abstract on PubMed by title, first, and last author names, and institutional matching. We recorded time to online publication, US versus foreign journal publication, and journal impact factor by 3.5 years from 2016 ASH annual meeting. Abstracts characteristics that were analyzed also included number of authors, gender of first author, gender of last author, and single vs multi-institution studies. Gender of the first and last author was confirmed by looking at their biography details on their institutional website. Descriptive analysis was performed and an association between presenter's or last author's gender and publication matrix was analyzed using Chi-square tests. Results: Of the 621 abstracts, 350 (56%) were published in full text by three and a half years since the 2016 ASH annual meeting. The abstracts' average time to journal publication was 17.46 months (SD +/- 11.32) (Table 1). Of the published articles, 64% (223/350) were published in U.S. journals; mean impact factor for all publications was 14.46 (SD+/- 11.47).The median number of authors for published and unpublished abstracts were similar. Females presented 37% (228/621) of the abstracts and 35% (123/350) of the journal publications had female first author and 22% (77/350) had female last author. A total of 53.9% (123/228) abstracts presented by a female author were published versus 57.7% (227/393) abstracts presented by a male author (p=<0.001). Males were more often involved in multi-institutional trials (p=0.045) and were more likely to have senior authorship (p=0.005). There was no correlation between the gender of the first author to journal impact factor (p=0.109) or time to publication (p=0.091). Conclusion: More than half of the oral abstracts were successfully published regardless of gender and number of authors. The rate of successful publication is higher for male authors even though there was no correlation between the gender of the first author to journal impact factor or time to publication. Our study highlights gender disparity in senior authorship, however this difference is not as wide in first authorship. Disclosures Jamshed: Takeda, Amgen and Celgene: Honoraria.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11034-11034
Author(s):  
Ankita Kapoor ◽  
Arjun Khunger ◽  
Unnati Bhatia ◽  
Simrat Gill ◽  
Yagya Ahlawat ◽  
...  

11034 Background: We aimed to determine abstract characteristics associated with successful peer-reviewed publication after presentation at ASCO annual meeting in the women’s malignancy category (breast & gynecologic cancer). Awareness of this could help meeting organizers & attendees understand factors associated with impactful abstracts. Methods: All oral & poster abstracts (OA: n = 53 & PA: n = 527) in Breast (Loco/Regional/Adjuvant & Metastatic) & Gynecologic cancers category (2017 & 2018 meeting) were included. Subsequent publication was confirmed by searching PubMed by title, names of first & last authors for abstracts published by January 2021. Time to online publication, US or foreign journal publication & impact factor (IF) were recorded. We also recorded number of authors, single/ multi-institution studies & gender of first/ last author, which was confirmed by viewing biography details on their institutional websites. Descriptive analysis was performed & association between above factors & publication matrix was analyzed using multiple logistic regression model, Chi-square and t-test. Results: 45/53 OA (85%) & 269/527 PA (51%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. Median number of authors for published PA was 12 vs 11 for unpublished (p = 0.24). Females (F) presented 34% (18/53) OA & 49.3% (260/527) PA. 55% (143/260) PA presented by female authors & 47.1% (126/267) presented by male (M) authors (p = 0.073) were published. No difference in publication between single vs multi-institution studies (p = 0.76) for PA was noted. Average time to journal publication for OA & PA was 15.45 (SD +/- 3.37) & 17.73 (SD +/- 1.27) months (mo) respectively. Mean IF for OA was 27.95 (SD+/- 6.18) while for PA was 10.96 (SD+/- 1.75). For published OA, 33% (15/45) had female first & 29% (13/45) had female last authors. For published PA, 50.2% (135/269) had female first while only 37.5% (101/269) had female last authors. There was no association between gender of last author to IF (p = 0.39), single vs multi-institution study (p = 0.48) or time to publication (p = 0.44) for PA. Conclusions: More than 75% of OA & 50% of PA were successfully published regardless of gender, number of authors or institutions involved. We observe a slight disparity in senior authorship for females and although this was not statistically significant, we are encouraged that the gap is closing in first authorship.[Table: see text]


2007 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 23-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Tower ◽  
Julie Plummer ◽  
Brenda Ridgewell

The past academic gender literature has focused on the underproduction of academic women in research outcomes and related reasons such as prejudice, more frequent career breaks and personality differences between genders. This study examines the top six journals in the world and finds no difference between women and men productivity when the percentage of women participating in the academic work force is factored in. Women have a 30-35% participation rate in academic university positions and represented almost 30% of the authors in the top tiered journals. There are also no significantly statistical differences in Journal Impact Factor ratings between men and women. These findings are consistent across all the major disciplines, science, business and social science. Other trends are noted such as the significantly higher number of authors in science journals and the different trends between US and non-US authors. Science authors quality (as measured by Journal Impact Factor (JIF of 31.9) is significantly higher than non-science authors (JIF 6.5); thus differences in quality are discipline specific not a gender issue. The implications are that academic womens research contribution matches that of a mans productivity.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Metin Orbay ◽  
Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽  
Ruben Miranda

This study analyzes the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in Education and Educational Research (E&ER) category, highlighting the main differences among journal quartiles, using Web of Science (Social Sciences Citation Index, SSCI) as the data source. High impact journals (Q1) publish only slightly more papers than expected, which is different to other areas. The papers published in Q1 journal have greater average citations and lower uncitedness rates compared to other quartiles, although the differences among quartiles are lower than in other areas. The impact factor is only weakly negative correlated (r=-0.184) with the journal self-citation but strongly correlated with the citedness of the median journal paper (r= 0.864). Although this strong correlation exists, the impact factor is still far to be the perfect indicator for expected citations of a paper due to the high skewness of the citations distribution. This skewness was moderately correlated with the citations received by the most cited paper of the journal (r= 0.649) and the number of papers published by the journal (r= 0.484), but no important differences by journal quartiles were observed. In the period 2013–2018, the average journal impact factor in the E&ER has increased largely from 0.908 to 1.638, which is justified by the field growth but also by the increase in international collaboration and the share of papers published in open access. Despite their inherent limitations, the use of impact factors and related indicators is a starting point for introducing the use of bibliometric tools for objective and consistent assessment of researcher.


2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 328-333
Author(s):  
Sven Kepes ◽  
George C. Banks ◽  
Sheila K. Keener

Author(s):  
Susie Allard ◽  
Ali Andalibi ◽  
Patty Baskin ◽  
Marilyn Billings ◽  
Eric Brown ◽  
...  

Following up on recommendations from OSI 2016, this team will dig deeper into the question of developing and recommending new tools to repair or replace the journal impact factor (and/or how it is used), and propose actions the OSI community can take between now and the next meeting. What’s needed? What change is realistic and how will we get there from here?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document