27
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Conversion of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscripts: a brazilian perspective Translated title: Conversão dos resumos apresentados em congressos de Cirurgia Plástica em manuscritos completos: uma perspectiva brasileira

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          ABSTRACT Objective: to assess the conversion rate of Plastic Surgery meeting abstract presentations to full manuscript publications and examine factors associated with this conversion. Methods: we assessed the abstracts presented at the 47th and 48th Brazilian Congresses of Plastic Surgery by cross-referencing with multiple databases. We analyzed the Abstracts' characteristics associated with full manuscript publications. Results: of the 200 abstracts presented, 50 abstracts were subsequently published in full, giving the conference a conversion rate of 25%. The mean time to publish was 15.00±13.75 months. In total, there were 4.93±1.63 authors per abstract and 67.8±163 subjects per abstract; 43.5% of the abstracts were of retrospective studies; 69% comprised the plastic surgery topics head and neck, and chest and trunk, and 88.5% had no statistical analysis. Overall, 80% of the manuscripts were published in plastic surgery journals, 76% had no impact factor and 52% had no citations. Bivariate and multivariate analyses revealed the presence of statistical analysis to be the most significant (p<0.05) predictive factor of conversion of abstracts into full manuscripts. Conclusion: the conversion rate found from this bibliometric research appeared a bit lower than the conversion trend of international plastic surgery meetings, and statistical analysis was a determinant of conversion success.

          Translated abstract

          RESUMO Objetivo: avaliar a taxa de conversão de resumos apresentados em congressos de Cirurgia Plástica em publicações de manuscritos completos e examinar fatores associados a essa conversão. Métodos: resumos apresentados nos XLVII e XLVIII Congressos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Plástica foram avaliados por meio de referências cruzadas em diversos bancos de dados. Averiguaram-se as características dos resumos associadas às publicações de manuscritos completos. Resultados: dos 200 resumos apresentados, 50 foram posteriormente publicados na íntegra, determinando uma taxa de publicação de 25%. O tempo médio para publicação foi 15,00±13,75 meses. No total, houve 4,93±1,63 autores/resumo e 67,8±163 pacientes/resumo; 43,5% dos resumos foram estudos retrospectivos; 69% pertenciam aos tópicos crânio, cabeça e pescoço, e tórax e tronco e 88,5% não apresentavam análise estatística. No geral, 80% dos manuscritos foram publicados em revistas de Cirurgia Plástica, 76% não exibiam fator de impacto e 52% não possuíam citações. As análises bivariada e multivariada revelaram que a presença de análise estatística foi o fator preditivo significativo (p<0,05) para a conversão de resumos em manuscritos completos. Conclusão: a taxa de conversão deste estudo bibliométrico foi inferior à tendência de conversão descrita em congressos internacionais de Cirurgia Plástica, e a presença de análise estatística foi um determinante para o sucesso de conversão.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Authors report lack of time as main reason for unpublished research presented at biomedical conferences: a systematic review.

          To systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Why Are Medical and Health-Related Studies Not Being Published? A Systematic Review of Reasons Given by Investigators

            Objective About 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. Methods MEDLINE, 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. Results We 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. Conclusions Non-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.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Role: ND
                Journal
                rcbc
                Revista do Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões
                Rev. Col. Bras. Cir.
                Colégio Brasileiro de Cirurgiões (Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil )
                0100-6991
                1809-4546
                February 2017
                : 44
                : 1
                : 17-26
                Affiliations
                [1] Campinas Sao Paulo State orgnameSOBRAPAR Hospital orgdiv1Institute of Plastic and Craniofacial Surgery Brazil
                Article
                S0100-69912017000100017
                10.1590/0100-69912017001008
                28489207
                731ee4e7-600e-4d40-955a-9250070c785b

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 03 November 2016
                : 16 October 2016
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 30, Pages: 10
                Product

                SciELO Brazil


                Meeting abstracts,Manuscripts,Publications,Manuscritos,Cirurgia plástica,Publicações

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content54

                Cited by6

                Most referenced authors606