Will I publish this abstract? Determining the characteristics of medical education oral abstracts linked to publication.

Autor:	Guay JM; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Wood TJ; Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Touchie C; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.; Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.; Medical Council of Canada, Ontario, Canada., Ta CA; Department of Innovation in Medical Education, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Halman S; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Canadian medical education journal [Can Med Educ J] 2020 Dec 07; Vol. 11 (6), pp. e46-e53. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Dec 07 (Print Publication: 2020).
DOI:	10.36834/cmej.69558
Abstrakt:	Background: Prior studies have shown that most conference submissions fail to be published. Understanding factors that facilitate publication may be of benefit to authors. Using data from the Canadian Conference on Medical Education (CCME), our goal was to identify characteristics of conference submissions that predict the likelihood of publication with a specific focus on the utility of peer-review ratings. Methods: Study characteristics (scholarship type, methodology, population, sites, institutions) from all oral abstracts from 2011-2015 and peer-review ratings for 2014-2015 were extracted by two raters. Publication data was obtained using online database searches. The impact of variables on publication success was analyzed using logistic regressions. Results: In total, 953 oral abstracts were reviewed from 2011 to 2015. Overall, the publication rate was 30.5% (291/953). Of 531 abstracts with peer-review ratings, between 2014 and 2015, 162 (31%) were published. Of the nine analyzed variables, those associated with a greater odds of publication were: multiple vs. single institutions (odds ratio (OR) = 1.72), post-graduate research vs. others (OR=1.81) and peer-review ratings (OR=1.60). Factors with decreased odds of publication were curriculum development (OR=0.17) and innovation vs. others (OR=0.22). Conclusion: Similar to other studies, the publication rate of CCME presentations is low. However, peer ratings were predictive of publication success suggesting that ratings could be a useful form of feedback to authors. Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: Timothy J. Wood, Claire Touchie and Samantha Halman are current or past members of the CCME scientific planning committee, but no other conflicts are identified. Conference abstract selection is a multi-rater process and thus none of the authors are uniquely responsible for abstract (© 2020 Guay, Wood, Touchie, Ta, Halman; licensee Synergies Partners.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu