Quantifying publication rates and time to publication for urologic oncology podium presentations.

357 Background: The American Urological Association (AUA) annual meetings serve as a large platform for unpublished research. Among the selected abstracts, podium presentations represent the most impactful submissions. Furthermore, between large meeting attendance and social media promotion, authors can disseminate their findings to a potentially large audience prior to final manuscript publication. While all AUA abstracts do undergo peer review, it is not with the same level of scrutiny that full-length manuscripts receive. Thus, we investigated the publication rates, impact factors, and time to publication of urologic oncology podium presentations at the AUA. Methods: Of 875 podium presentation abstracts from the 2017 AUA Annual meeting, 394 (45.0%) were classified as urologic oncology. We chose 2017 to allow for a three-year window for publication. Abstracts were assessed for subsequent publication between January 1, 2015 and May 31, 2020 with a pre-determined PubMed search protocol. Abstract authors were searched for individually, with key terms being added sequentially until <30 results were generated in PubMed. Each search result was then reviewed until a matching publication was found. Abstracts were deemed published if at least one author of the presented abstract was a manuscript author and/or at least one conclusion in the presented abstract was included in the conclusions of the publication. Publication rates, time to publication, and 2019 journal impact factors were collected. Results: Of 394 urologic oncology podium presentations at the 2017 AUA, 228 (57.9%) focused on prostate cancer, while 81 (20.6%) and 58 (14.7%) presentations focused on kidney and bladder cancer, respectively (table). Overall, 211 (53.6%) podium presentations were published. Median time from presentation to publication was 13.6 months (IQR: 7.5-21.5). There were 9 (2.3%) publications that were published prior to the submission deadline and 57 (14.5%) podium presentations that were published prior to the 2017 AUA meeting. The number of articles published at one, two and three years after the meeting was 90, 170 and 202, respectively. The median journal impact factor of all published works was 3.4 (IQR: 2.7-5.9). Conclusions: While AUA podium presentations disseminate valuable data, approximately half of these presentations were not published in peer-reviewed journals within three years. Therefore, care must be taken when promoting data or adopting new practices based on these presentations alone. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

FROM PODIUM TO PRESS: THE 10-YEAR PUBLICATION RATE OF ABSTRACTS PRESENTED AT THE ANNUAL MEETINGS OF THE QUEBEC UROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION (QUA)

Canadian Urological Association Journal ◽

10.5489/cuaj.1383 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 7 (5-6) ◽

Author(s):

Talal M Al-Qaoud ◽

Faysal A Yafi ◽

Armen G Aprikian

Keyword(s):

Publication Rate ◽

Impact Factors ◽

P Value ◽

Level Of Evidence ◽

Publication Rates ◽

Kaplan Meier ◽

Thomson Reuters ◽

Pubmed Database ◽

American Urological Association ◽

Research Type

Introduction: To determine the proportion of publications arising from abstracts presented at the Quebec Urological Association (QUA), to analyze differences in publication rates according to certain parameters, and to examine the quality of publications using journal impact factors. Methods: All abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the QUA between 2000 and 2010 were obtained from the QUA archives and searched using the PubMed database. Variables included: Institute, number of abstracts presented, year of presentation and publication, impact factor of publishing journal (according to 2010 Thomson Reuters report), time to publication (months), research type, presenter, and location of research. Kaplan Meier methods were used for analysis. Results: By May 2012, 248 out of 439 abstracts (QUA 2000 to 2010) were published in peer-reviewed journals resulting in a publication rate of 56%. There were significant differences in publication rate according to institute, research type, and location of research. Non-Quebec institutions were twice as likely to publish compared to Quebec institutions (Cox HR 2.13, CI 1.20 – 3.76, p-value <0.01). Discussion: The QUA publication rate was considerably higher than previously studied by the American Urological Association (37.8%) and British Association of Urological Surgeons (≈42%); however length of follow up and presentation types differed. Research conducted outside Quebec was more likely to be published, reflecting the multi-institution robust study designs and higher level of evidence. Factors influencing publication deserve further attention, and clinicians are encouraged to conduct research with intent to publish.

Download Full-text

Publication Rates, Ethnic and Sex Disparities in UK and Ireland Surgical Research Prize Presentations: An Analysis of Data From the Moynihan and Patey Prizes From 2000 to 2020

World Journal of Surgery ◽

10.1007/s00268-021-06268-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Jaspreet K. Seehra ◽

Christopher Lewis-Lloyd ◽

Amanda Koh ◽

Elena Theophilidou ◽

Prita Daliya ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Research Society ◽

High Impact ◽

Surgical Research ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Academic Affiliation ◽

Publication Rates ◽

White Males ◽

Sex Disparities ◽

The Uk ◽

Journal Impact

Abstract Background Presentation at academic conferences is an important marker of research productivity. However, not all accepted abstracts progress to full publication, and there is anecdotal evidence suggesting an imbalance in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters. There is a lack of data evaluating the outcome of prize presentation sessions at academic surgical conferences in the UK. This study aimed to analyse the outcomes and demographics from presentations at prize sessions at two prestigious UK surgical conferences. Methods This retrospective observational study compared data on all Moynihan (Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland) and Patey (Surgical Research Society) prize presentations from 2000 to 2020. The primary outcome was rate of publication. Secondary outcomes included demographic differences in sex and ethnicity, publication according to prize outcome, academic affiliation, time to publication, and journal impact factor. Results Some 442 accepted abstracts were identified over the 21-year period, with 71.0% from the Moynihan sessions and 79.3% from the Patey sessions leading to full publications, with a median time to publication of 448 days (IQR 179–859) in journals with relatively high impact factors (median 5.00; IQR 3.15–6.36). Of the 442 prize presenters, 85 (19.2%) were female. The majority of the presenters were White males (211, 47.7%), followed by Asian males (112, 25.3%). However, there was a continuously increasing overall trend of female presenters from 2000 to 2020 (P = 0.019). Conclusion Publication rates from the two prize sessions were high, with presenters publishing in journals with high impact factors. There, however, was a disparity in sex and ethnicity amongst presenters.

Download Full-text

The integrated interventional radiology match: a bibliometric analysis of matched first-year residents

American Journal of Interventional Radiology ◽

10.25259/ajir_23_2019 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 3 ◽

pp. 13 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Vishnu Chandra ◽

Neil Jain ◽

Pratik Shukla ◽

Ethan Wajswol ◽

Sohail Contractor ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Interventional Radiology ◽

Bibliometric Analysis ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Univariate Analysis ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Index Number ◽

Research Information ◽

H Index ◽

Scopus Database ◽

Journal Impact

Objectives: The integrated interventional radiology (IR) residency has only been established relatively recently as compared to other specialties. Although some preliminary information is available based on survey data five, no comprehensive bibliometric analysis documenting the importance of the quantity and quality of research in applying to an integrated-IR program currently exists. As the first bibliometric analysis of matched IR residents, the data obtained from this study fills a gap in the literature. Materials and Methods: A list of matched residents from the 2018 integrated-IR match were identified by contacting program directors. The Scopus database was used to search for resident research information, including total publications, first-author publications, radiology-related publications, and h-indices. Each matriculating program was categorized into one of five tiers based on the average faculty Hirsch index (h-index). Results: Sixty-three programs and 117 matched residents were identified and reviewed on the Scopus database. For the 2018 cycle, 274 total publications were produced by matched applicants, with a mean of 2.34 ± 0.41 publication per matched applicant. The average h-index for matched applicants was 0.96 ± 0.13. On univariate analysis, the number of radiology-related publications, highest journal impact factor, and h-index were all associated with an increased likelihood of matching into a higher tier program (P < 0.05). Other research variables displayed no statistical significance. All applicants with PhDs matched into tier one programs. Conclusions: Research serves as an important element in successfully matching into an integrated-IR residency. h-index, number of radiology-related manuscripts, and highest journal impact factors are all positively associated with matching into a higher tier program.

Download Full-text

The Socio-economic Context of Journal Impact Factors

Proceedings of the Annual Conference of CAIS / Actes du congrès annuel de l'ACSI ◽

10.29173/cais778 ◽

2013 ◽

Author(s):

Brendan Luyt

Keyword(s):

Perceived Value ◽

Modern Society ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Economic Context ◽

Perte D’Autonomie ◽

Journal Impact

This paper argues that the rise of the JIF is a result of the perceived value of quantification measures in modern society and the restructuring of capitalism. Two key implications of this acceptance are explored: an increase in global academic dependency and a lessening of autonomy in the scientific field.Cet article défend la thèse que la montée du FIRS est le résultat de la valeur perçue des mesures de quantification de la société moderne et de la restructuration du capitalisme. Seront explorées deux conséquences importantes de cette acceptation : une augmentation de la dépendance globale du milieu universitaire et une perte d'autonomie du milieu de la science.

Download Full-text

Dynamics of Journal Impact Factors and Limits to Their Inflation

Journal of Scholarly Publishing ◽

10.3138/jsp.50.1.06 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 50 (1) ◽

pp. 26-36 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Igor Fischer ◽

Hans-Jakob Steiger

Keyword(s):

Impact Factors ◽

Journal Impact

Download Full-text

Analysis of the journal impact factor and related bibliometric indicators in education and educational research category

Education for Information ◽

10.3233/efi-200442 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-22

Author(s):

Metin Orbay ◽

Orhan Karamustafaoğlu ◽

Ruben Miranda

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Educational Research ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Impact Factors ◽

Bibliometric Indicators ◽

Strongly Correlated ◽

Starting Point ◽

Consistent Assessment ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Impact

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.

Download Full-text