How do Medical Societies Select Science for Conference Presentation? How Should They?
| Autor: | Daniel J. Pallin, Ali S. Raja, Thomas M. Kuczmarski |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2015 |
| Předmět: |
Response rate (survey)
abstract scoring Medical education Scoring system Computer science Abstracting and Indexing media_common.quotation_subject medical society abstract Conflict of interest abstract selection Convenience sample General Medicine Congresses as Topic Data science United States abstract scoring criteria Presentation Population Health Research Design Surveys and Questionnaires Emergency Medicine Gestalt psychology reviewer bias Societies Medical media_common Original Research |
| Zdroj: | Kuczmarski, Thomas; Raja, Ali S.; & Pallin, Daniel J.(2015). How do Medical Societies Select Science for Conference Presentation? How Should They?. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine, 16(4). doi: 10.5811/westjem.2015.5.25518. Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/88s8x25w Western Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| Popis: | Introduction: Nothing has been published to describe the practices of medical societies in choosing abstracts for presentations at their annual meetings. We surveyed medical societies to determine their practices, and also present a theoretical analysis of the topic. Methods: We contacted a convenience sample of large U.S. medical conferences, and determined their approach to choosing abstracts. We obtained information from web sites, telephone, and email. Our theoretical analysis compares values-based and empirical approaches for scoring system development. Results: We contacted 32 societies and obtained data on 28 (response rate 88%). We excluded one upon learning that research was not presented at its annual meeting, leaving 27 for analysis. Only 2 (7%) made their abstract scoring process available to submitters. Reviews were blinded in most societies (21; 78%), and all but one asked reviewers to recuse themselves for conflict of interest (96%). All required ≥3 reviewers. Of the 24 providing information on how scores were generated, 21 (88%) reported using a single gestalt score, and three used a combined score created from pooled domain-specific sub-scores. We present a framework for societies to use in choosing abstracts, and demonstrate its application in the development of a new scoring system. Conclusions: Most medical societies use subjective, gestalt methods to select research for presentation at their annual meetings and do not disclose to submitters the details of how abstracts are chosen. We present a new scoring system that is transparent to submitters and reviewers alike with an accompanying statement of values and ground rules. We discuss the challenges faced in selecting abstracts for a large scientific meeting and share the values and practical considerations that undergird the new system. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|