Publication rates of abstracts presented across 6 major spine specialty conferences

Tariq Ziad Issa · Yunsoo A. Lee · Mark James Lambrechts · Christopher A. Reynolds · Ryan Cha · James Kim +5 more

5 citations0/0 files storedNorth American Spine Society Journal (NASSJ)

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Writing and Publishing scientometrics and bibliometrics research Academic Publishing and Open Access

Abstract

Background: Although scientific researchers aim to present their projects at academic conferences as a step toward publication, not all projects mature to become a peer-reviewed manuscript. The publication rate of meetings can be utilized to assess the quality of presented research. Our objective was to evaluate the contemporary publication rate of abstracts presented at spine conferences. Methods: We reviewed annual meeting programs of North American Spine Society (NASS), Scoliosis Research Society (SRS), International Meeting on Advanced Spine Techniques (IMAST), Spine Global Spine Congress (GSC), Lumbar Spine Research Society (LSRS), and Cervical Spine Research Society (CSRS) from 2017 to 2019. Abstracts were identified as published from PubMed and Google search. From published manuscripts, journal name and open access status was collected. Journal impact factors were collected from the 2021 Journal Citation Reports. Results: A total of 3,091/5,722 (54%) abstracts were published, ranging from 44.5% to 66.3%. Publication rate of posters and podiums ranged from 39.8% to 64.8% and 51.6% to 67.2%, respectively. Podium presentations were more likely to be published than posters (59.6% vs. 47.2%, p<.001). Only NASS (61.4% vs. 61.8%) and LSRS (64.6% vs. 67.2%) demonstrated similar publication rates for posters and podiums. Award nominated abstracts had a significantly higher publication rate (68.0% vs. 53.4%, p<.001). Among journals with an impact factor, the median overall impact factor was 3.27 and was similar between all conferences except GSC, which was slightly lower (2.72 vs. 3.27, p<.001). Conclusions: Fifty-four percent of abstracts were published with 3 societies (NASS, LSRS, and SRS) having rates of over 60%. Moreover, NASS and LSRS demonstrated high publication rates regardless of presentation type. These numbers are significantly higher than previous reports suggesting that these conferences allow attendees to review high quality evidence that is likely to achieve peer-reviewed publication while obtaining an early look at original research.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

References

2007Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2011The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009 1994Full Publication of Results Initially Presented in Abstracts 2018Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts 2002AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY OF ORTHOPAEDIC ABSTRACTS AND SUBSEQUENT FULL-TEXT PUBLICATIONS 1999The Publication Rates of Presentations at Major Spine Specialty Society Meetings (NASS, SRS, ISSLS)2011Research productivity in neurosurgery: trends in globalization, scientific focus, and funding 2015The Top 100 Classic Papers in Lumbar Spine Surgery

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.