Publication rates of scientific papers presented at theOtorhinolaryngological Research Society meetings

D . ROY, V. S A N K A R , J . P. H U G H E S , A . J O N E S & J . E . F E N TO NRoyal Liverpool University Hospital, Liverpool, UK

Accepted for publication 12 February 2001

R O Y D . , S A N K A R V. , H U G H E S J . P. , J O N E S A . & F E N T O N J . E .

(2001) Clin. Otolaryngol. 26, 253–256

Publication rates of scientific papers presented at Otorhinolaryngological Research Societymeetings

The aim of this study was to determine the publication rate of scientific papers in peer review journals presented at the

Otorhinolaryngological Research Society (ORS) meetings from 1978 to 1995 inclusive. The abstracts of the

presentations at ORS meetings are published in Clinical Otolaryngology. A MEDLINE search was performed on

abstracts presented at ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 using both authors and key words within the text of the

abstract. The publication rate, journal of publication, time to publication, change in contents, change in authors and

change in conclusions of abstracts were tabulated. The publication rate for papers presented at ORS meetings from

1978 to 1995 was 69.09%. The average time to publication was 22.5 months. Papers derived from the ORS abstracts

were most commonly published in Clinical Otolaryngology (34%) and Journal of Laryngology and Otology

(18.64%). The results indicate that nearly 69% of presented material at the biannual ORS meetings eventually get

published in peer reviewed journals. This compares favourably with publication rate of other specialities.

Keywords journals publications scientific research ORS

There has been a notable increase in research in otolaryngol-

ogy over the past few decades.1 The two most common modes

of dissemination of current research is by oral presentation

at scientific meetings and publication in medical journals.

The publication of research in peer reviewed journals is

an acknowledgement of its validity.2 Publication rates as

low as 33% of the abstracts presented at national meetings

have been reported.3 Currently, there is no data available

regarding the publication rates of abstracts presented at

the biannual Otorhinolaryngology Research Society (ORS)

meetings. The abstract presentations in these meetings serve

as an important role to disseminate new information, sum-

marising current research, and focusing on future research

efforts.

The aim of our study was to determine the rate of publica-

tion of papers in peer reviewed journals after oral presenta-

tions at the ORS meetings from 1978 to 1995 and to compare

publication rates with other specialities.

Materials and methods

The abstracts of presentations at ORS meetings are published

in Clinical Otolaryngology. Abstracts of all presentations

from 1978 to 1995 were entered into a database. All of the

abstracts were searched for publication in peer-reviewed

journal using PubMed (MEDLINE) database.

The initial search was applied to the first author and by a

broad keyword from the title or abstract. If this failed to locate

a publication, then each subsequent author was searched first

with a keyword and then without until a match was found or

until each author yielded no suitable results. If a match was not

found, it was assumed that the article was not published in a

journal that is retrievable by Pubmed. In instances where

publications differed from the original abstract but if the

authors were the same and the content and title were almost

exact, it was considered to be publication from the same

work.4

No effort was made to check for multiple papers stemming

from a single abstract; once a suitable match was found, the

search for that presentation was concluded.

Publication rates were determined for the meetings and

classified according to subspecialty: otology, rhinology and

Clin. Otolaryngol. 2001, 26, 253–256

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd 253

Correspondence: Mr D. Roy, ENT Department, Royal LiverpoolUniversity Hospital, Prescott Street, Liverpool L7 8XP, UK (e-mail:devtanya@yahoo.com).

head and neck. In addition to determining publication rates,

the published articles were examined by the reviewers. Time

to publication was noted. Any changes in lead author, number

of authors, study design, and conclusion of studies were noted.

Papers were also categorized by the journal of publication. To

determine interobserver reliability, two reviewers searched

132 of the 660 abstracts (20%) and the findings were com-

pared.

Results

There were a total of 660 abstracts submitted to the ORS

meetings from the years 1978–1995. A total of 456 abstracts

(69.09%) were published as full-length articles in peer

reviewed journals. The inter-observer reliability among

reviewers was 92%. (121 out of 132).

Publication of the majority of these abstracts as full-length

papers (66.67%) occurred within the 5 years of respective

meetings (Table 1). The range in time to publication was

5 years prior to presentation and 9 years after presentation

(Figure 1). For all published papers, the overall mean time to

publication was 22 months. Out of the published papers,

71.05% (n¼ 324) were clinical and 28.95% (n¼ 132) were

experimental. Publication rates by category were as follows:

47.59% (n¼ 217) were in otology, 24.34% (n¼ 83) in rhinol-

ogy and 34.21% (n¼ 156) in head and neck surgery (Table 2).

Lead authors were changed in 19.30% (n¼ 88) and the

number of authors was changed in 32.68% (n¼ 149) of the

published papers. Conclusions were altered in 7.89% (n¼ 36)

abstracts published as papers. Table 3 demonstrates the

journals in which the majority of ORS presentations were

published.

Discussion

Presentations at major otolaryngology meetings and their

published abstracts serve the important function of dissemi-

nating new clinical and scientific information. However, the

ultimate goal of a research project is the publication of a

scientific paper in a peer-reviewed journal. To judge the

quality of research studies, it is useful to understand the

publication rate of presentations at a major conference. If

Table 1. Time to publication for presentations that appeared injournals

Time from meetingPublishedarticles % Cumulative %

Before meeting 27 5.92 5.921 years 152 33.33 39.32 years 163 35.73 753 years 65 14.25 89.34 years 23 5.05 94.35 years 10 2.19 96.5> 5 years 16 3.51 100

Table 2. Assessment of subspecialty publications

CategoriesTotal no.abstracts

Publishedpapers

% publishedpapers

% total no. ofabstracts ineach category

Otology 315 217 47.6 68.9Rhinology 119 83 18.2 69.7Head and neck 226 156 34.2 69Total 660 456 – 69.09

Figure 1. Time to publication for presentations that appeared injournals. &¼ per cent; & ¼ cumulative per cent; n ¼ publishedarticles.

Table 3. Top 20 journals in which papers were published

Journal No. published

Clinical Otolaryngology 155Journal of Laryngology and Otology 85Acta Otolaryngologica 25British Journal of Audiology 18Archives of Otolaryngology 16Laryngoscope 9British Medical Journal 9Rhinology 7Lancet 7American Journal of Otology 6Hearing Research 5Annals of Otorhinolaryngology 4International Journal of Paediatric

Otorhinolaryngology4

Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery 4Archives of Disabled Children 3Audiology 2Ear and Hearing 2Head and Neck Surgery 2Cancer 2Nature 1

254 D. Roy et al.

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Clinical Otolaryngology, 26, 253–256

the publication rate falls below the typical publication of other

meetings, this may reflect the fact that the presentations and

the meeting may be judged to be of inferior quality. Evaluation

of publication rates also provides feedback to researchers

regarding the average time to publication of the presented

work. A critical examination of the data provides feedback to

the program selection committee regarding the stringency of

their selection criteria.

This study of abstracts from ORS meetings from 1978 to

1995 demonstrated a publication rate of 69% in peer reviewed

indexed journals, which is the highest reported for any

discipline. This compares with publication rates for other

medical specialities; orthopaedics 64%,5 anaesthesia 50%,6

ophthalmology 60%,7 surgery 57%8 and paediatrics 48%.9 It

is important to note that the abstracts selected for presentation

at the ORS meetings are subjected to peer review by the

programme committee, who have to rely on minimum data

submitted in abstracts to make their decision. So a high

publication rate validates the selection process for the

abstracts presented at the ORS meetings and is a reflection

of the efforts of the program committee.

The lead author was altered in 19.30% (n¼ 88) of the

articles and the co-authors were changed in 32.68%

(n¼ 149). These changes may indicate that the work was

underway at the time of abstract submission and that sig-

nificant contribution to the research or manuscript preparation

was made after that time. The highest number of publications

was in the category of otology (n¼ 217) followed by head

and neck (n¼ 156) and rhinology (n¼ 83). However, the

difference in the publication rate of each category was not

statistically significant. (Table 2).

The conclusions were changed in 7.89% (n¼ 36) of the

full-length publications. Again, this may imply that the work

was incomplete and significant contributions were yet to be

made at the time of abstract submission. There was a mean

delay of 22 months for publications after the meetings, which

reflects the prolonged process that scientific data must

undergo prior to publication. This process is affected not only

by the review process but also by authors’ delay in revising the

manuscript. The relatively long time lag in this study implies

that authors have to persevere to get their research published.

It was interesting to note that 5.92% (n¼ 27) of the abstracts

were published as papers before the presentation of the

abstracts. In the opinion of the authors, this is contrary to

the general principle and objectives of scientific meetings and

should be discouraged.

A review of the ‘instructions to the authors’ of a number of

otolaryngology journals and general medical journals

revealed that there is a lack of consensus on the use of

abstracts in a bibliography and in some cases there are no

specific directions regarding abstracts. The ‘Uniform Require-

ments for Manuscripts Submission to Biomedical Journals’

advise authors to avoid using abstracts as references.10 The

study supports this advice since 30% of the abstracts failed

to be published in peer reviewed indexed journals.

In all, 99% of the presentations were published in otolar-

yngology journals, of which 34% were published in Clinical

Otolaryngology and 18.6% in Journal of Laryngology

and Otology. A minority 0.03% (n¼ 17) of abstracts were

published in general medical journals, which have a wider

audience. This is not surprising since the majority of research

presented is quite specialized and researchers target an

otolaryngology audience. This study demonstrates that some

of the research in general interest topics was of a standard to

achieve publication in high impact factor journals such as

BMJ, Lancet and Nature. In this study 30% of the abstracts

failed to be published. Failure to publish has been attributed to

lack of time and low priority as well as rejection by peer

reviewed journals.11 Some of the works presented at national

meetings are performed by students, registrars and research

fellows who have changing interests or insufficient time,

preventing the production of a complete manuscript.7 In this

study no attempt was made to contact the authors of abstracts

who failed to publish.

This study had several limitations. Articles published in

journals not accessed by PubMed (MEDLINE) were not

identified in the search. Abstracts may have undergone such

major changes to both study design and authorship that they

may be unrecognizable in a PubMed search. It was assumed

that all peer-reviewed publications result from a single

abstract, however, single publication may arise from multiple

abstracts or data from single abstract may lead to multiple

publications. This may change the publication rates.

Presentations at otolaryngology meetings tend to focus on

results and conclusions. During the presentation it is difficult

to evaluate the quality of study design and data. Despite these

shortcomings, many attending the meeting may change their

practice strategies based on the information that has not

undergone scrutiny of peer review. Oral presentations at

scientific meetings should serve as means of dissemination

of preliminary data and impetus for further discussion and

investigation in the field; they cannot and should not be

considered equivalent to peer-reviewed articles.

References

1 ROSENFIELD R.M. (1991) Clinical research in otolaryngologyjournals. Arch. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 112, 164–168

2 GORMAN R.L. & ODERDA G.M. (1990) Publication of presentedabstracts at annual scientific meetings: a measure of quality? Vet.Hum. Toxicol. 32, 470–472

3 MERANZE J., ELLISON N. & GREENHOW D.E. (1982) Publicationresulting from anaesthesia meeting abstracts. Anesth. Analg. 61,445–448

4 HAMLET W.P., FLETCHER A. & MEALS R.A. (1997) Publicationpatterns of papers presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. J. Bone JointSurg. (Am.) 79, 1138–1143

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Clinical Otolaryngology, 26, 253–256

Publication rates of scientific papers presented at ORS meetings 255

5 NGUYEN V., TORETTA P. & BKARIC M. (1998) Publication rates forthe scientific sessions of the OTA. J. Orthop. Trauma 12, 457–459

6 YENTIS S.M., CAMPBELL F.A. & LERMAN J. (1993) Publication ofabstracts presented at anaesthesia meetings. Can. J. Anaesth. 40,632–634

7 JUZYCH M.S., SHIN D.H., COFFEY J.B. et al. (1991) Pattern ofpublication of ophthalmic abstracts in peer reviewed journals.Ophthalmology 98, 553–556

8 EASTERBROOK P.J., BERLIN J.A., GOPALAN R. et al. (1991)Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 337, 867–872

9 MCCORMICK M.C. & HOLMES J.H. (1985) Publication of researchpresented at paediatric meetings: change in selection. Am. J. Dis.Child. 139, 122–126

10 ANONYMOUS (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscriptssubmitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 277, 927–934

11 DEBELLEFEUILLE C., MORRISON C.A. & TANOCK I.F. (1992) Thefate of abstracts submitted to cancer meeting: factors whichinfluence presentation and subsequent publication. Ann. Oncol. 3,187–191

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, Clinical Otolaryngology, 26, 253–256

256 D. Roy et al.