Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Professor Christopher HardingORCiD
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
© 2016, © British Association of Urological Surgeons 2016.Introduction: Acceptance of abstracts at the BAUS Annual Meeting is sought after by trainees and encouraged by trainers; however, it is the publication of this research in a peer-reviewed journal that validates the significance of the work. We aimed to compare current publication rates with those detailed in a previous study 10 years ago to examine for changes on the rate and time to peer-reviewed publications of abstracts presented. We also assessed whether there was a difference in the presentation and publication rates between UK deaneries. Methods: All abstracts accepted for presentation at the annual BAUS 2012 and 2013 meetings were identified from the published supplements in the BJU International journal. Listed abstracts were searched for in October 2015 using the Medline Plus (PubMed) database to assess for successful conversion to a peer-reviewed paper listed on the Medline database. Results: In total 281 abstracts were presented; of these, 265 (94.3%) were from the UK. A total of 24.2% of the abstracts presented over the two-year period resulted in a successful conversion to a peer-reviewed publication. Mean time to publication was 11.59 months and mean impact factor of the publishing journal was 3.854. There appeared to be no correlation between the number of abstracts presented per deanery and the subsequent successful conversion to peer-reviewed publication. Conclusions: There has been a decline over the past decade in the number of BAUS abstracts being successfully converted into peer-reviewed publications, from 42% to 24.2%. The quality of any scientific meeting can be quantified by the number of peer-reviewed publications arising from its abstracts. Possible reasons for this observed reduction include a lack of time to prepare manuscripts, the actual quality and relevance of work being presented and data that may be of questionable validity. In addition, indicative numbers set for publications to enable successful awarding of Certificate of Completion of Training are low.
Author(s): Moon A, Harding C
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Journal of Clinical Urology
Year: 2017
Volume: 10
Issue: 1
Pages: 22-27
Print publication date: 01/01/2017
Online publication date: 09/09/2016
Acceptance date: 17/08/2016
ISSN (print): 2051-4158
ISSN (electronic): 2051-4166
Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/2051415816668945
DOI: 10.1177/2051415816668945
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
