Peer Review Report For: Is gastroenterology research in decline? A comparison of abstract publication rates from The British Society of Gastroenterology meetings between 1995 and 2005 [version 1; peer review: 3 approved]

Résumé fourni par la source

Background: Reports have suggested that academic medicine may be in decline within the UK. Further evidence suggests that rates of subsequent full publication of abstracts presented at major scientific meetings are low and may be declining. We have compared the publication rates of abstracts presented at meetings of the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) between 1995 and 2005 and examined factors associated with full paper publication. Methods: Abstracts presented at BSG meetings in 1995 and 2005 were assessed by cross-referencing with multiple databases. Abstract characteristics associated with publication were analysed. Results: There were no differences in overall publication rates, impact factors or time to publication between 1995 and 2005. Overall, basic-science abstracts were twice as likely to achieve full publication than non-basic science. There was a significant fall in the publication rates for case series and audits, and significantly increased rates for fundamental/basic-science abstracts over the study period. There were non-significant increases in publication rates for controlled trials and systematic reviews. In general, publication rates for all predominantly clinically orientated abstracts reduced between the two periods with the most notable fall occurring in nutrition. Conclusions: There was no evidence of a decline in overall abstract publication rates between 1995 and 2005. There seemed to be trend for increased publication rates of abstracts using perceived high-quality study methodologies with a corresponding decrease in those with lower quality methods. The proportion of basic-science abstracts is likely to be a determinant of overall full publication rates following scientific meetings.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.