Publication outcome for research presented at the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland annual meetings

Publication rate and evidence-based evaluation of abstracts presented at the annual European College of Veterinary Surgeons scientific meeting

OBJECTIVES

To determine the publication rate of abstracts presented at 10 European College of Veterinary Surgeons conferences from 2006 to 2015, report the key publication milestones, and determine variables associated with full manuscript publication.

STUDY DESIGN

Literature review.

SAMPLE POPULATION

One thousand thirty-eight abstracts.

METHODS

All conference abstracts (n = 1038) from the 2006 to 2015 annual ECVS scientific meetings were reviewed, and final publication was determined through a comprehensive bibliographic search. Categories for the level of evidence (LoE), subject, discipline, and institution affiliation were assigned for each abstract. Dates of manuscript submission, acceptance, and publication were recorded.

RESULTS

The overall publication rate for ECVS abstracts from 2006 to 2015 was 32%. Abstracts with levels 4 (60%) and 5 (23%) evidence were presented the most at ECVS conferences and had the highest publication rates at 38% and 36%, respectively. Key publication milestones showed that most abstracts (83%) received publication within the first 36 months with most LoE 2 abstracts (91%) being published within 24 months of presentation. Most published abstracts were affiliated with academic institutions (85%), on dog (29%) and horse (27%) subjects, focused on orthopedic (35%) and soft tissue disciplines (27%), and published in Veterinary Surgery (32%).

CONCLUSION

The ECVS abstract publication rate was lower, and timeline was longer to publish than other veterinary surgical conferences. Publication occurred most frequently in academic institutions, in select journals, and was limited to orthopedic, soft-tissue, dog, and horse studies.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Results from this study may help improve the publication fate of abstracts in veterinary surgery. Additionally, caution is warranted when using information from abstracts that have yet to be published to help guide clinical decisions.

Charting the course from abstract to published article

OBJECTIVE

Abstracts act as short, efficient sources of new information. This intentional brevity potentially diminishes scientific reliability of described findings. The authors' objective was to 1) determine the proportion of abstracts submitted to the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) annual meeting that subsequently are published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) assess AANS abstract publications for publication bias, and 3) assess AANS abstract publications for differing results.

METHODS

The authors screened all abstracts from the annual 2012 AANS meeting and identified their corresponding full-text publication, if applicable, by searching PubMed/MEDLINE. The abstract and subsequent publication were analyzed for result type (positive or negative) and differences in results.

RESULTS

Overall, 49.3% of abstracts were published as papers. Many (18.1%) of these published papers differed in message from their original abstract. Publication bias exists, with positive abstracts being 40% more likely to be published than negative abstracts. The top journals in which the full-text articles were published were Journal of Neurosurgery (13.1%), Neurosurgery (7.3%), and World Neurosurgery (5.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Here, the authors demonstrate that alone, abstracts are not reliable sources of information. Many abstracts ultimately remain unpublished; therefore, they do not attain a level of scientific scrutiny that merits alteration of clinical care. Furthermore, many that are published have differing results or conclusions. In addition, positive publication bias exists, as positive abstracts are more likely to be published than negative abstracts.

Factors relating to the publication rate of abstracts presented from 2012 to 2015 at the Society for Vascular Surgery Annual Meeting

OBJECTIVE

The Society for Vascular Surgery's Annual Meeting acts as a means of disseminating research findings among vascular surgeons through the presentation of research abstracts. Following presentation at the meeting, research is often compiled into a full-text manuscript and submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. However, not all abstracts accepted to the Vascular Annual Meeting (VAM) eventually have a corresponding full-text publication. The objectives of this study were to establish the publication rate of abstracts presented between 2012 and 2015 to the VAM and to identify factors correlating with publication status.

METHODS

Abstracts presented at the VAM were available through the Journal of Vascular Surgery. Data extracted from eligible abstracts included level of evidence according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine 2011 Levels of Evidence scheme, type of study (prognostic, therapeutic/harm, diagnostic), sample size, and status of outcome (positive, negative, or descriptive findings). Publication status of the abstracts was determined through a comprehensive literature review of PubMed (MEDLINE), Ovid (MEDLINE), and Embase. A multivariable logistic regression was conducted to determine factors correlating with publication status.

RESULTS

The publication rate during the study period was 43.0% with a median time to publication of 9 months, with 412 of the 958 abstracts having a corresponding full-text publication in 48 journals with weighted mean impact factor of 3.40. Eleven journals collectively published 372 (90.3%) of the articles, with the Journal of Vascular Surgery publishing 280 (68.0%) of the manuscripts. Our logistic regression model demonstrated that factors positively affecting publication status were a positive status of outcome (odds ratio, 2.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-4.28) and a logarithmic increase in the sample size of the study (odds ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.60). In addition, studies with a corresponding full-text publication had a greater median sample size (250) compared with those without one (143; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

From 2012 to 2015, 43.0% of VAM abstracts had a corresponding full-text publication, with greater sample size and a positive status of outcome positively correlating with likelihood of publication. Studies with negative findings made up a small proportion of conference abstracts (9.6%) and were the least likely to be published. Given the relatively small size of the specialty of vascular surgery, it may be particularly important to be mindful of publication bias. It may be worthwhile to give additional consideration to acceptance of abstracts or publication of studies with negative results that meaningfully contribute to the literature.

Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts

BACKGROUND

Abstracts of presentations at scientific meetings are usually available only in conference proceedings. If subsequent full publication of results reported in these abstracts is based on the magnitude or direction of the results, publication bias may result. Publication bias creates problems for those conducting systematic reviews or relying on the published literature for evidence about health and social care.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review reports of studies that have examined the proportion of meeting abstracts and other summaries that are subsequently published in full, the time between meeting presentation and full publication, and factors associated with full publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index, reference lists, and author files. The most recent search was done in February 2016 for this substantial update to our earlier Cochrane Methodology Review (published in 2007).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included reports of methodology research that examined the proportion of biomedical results initially presented as abstracts or in summary form that were subsequently published. Searches for full publications had to be at least two years after meeting presentation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the proportion of abstracts published in full using a random-effects model. Dichotomous variables were analyzed using risk ratio (RR), with multivariable models taking into account various characteristics of the reports. We assessed time to publication using Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

Combining data from 425 reports (307,028 abstracts) resulted in an overall full publication proportion of 37.3% (95% confidence interval (CI), 35.3% to 39.3%) with varying lengths of follow-up. This is significantly lower than that found in our 2007 review (44.5%. 95% CI, 43.9% to 45.1%). Using a survival analyses to estimate the proportion of abstracts that would be published in full by 10 years produced proportions of 46.4% for all studies; 68.7% for randomized and controlled trials and 44.9% for other studies. Three hundred and fifty-three reports were at high risk of bias on one or more items, but only 32 reports were considered at high risk of bias overall.Forty-five reports (15,783 abstracts) with 'positive' results (defined as any 'significant' result) showed an association with full publication (RR = 1.31; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.40), as did 'positive' results defined as a result favoring the experimental treatment (RR =1.17; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.28) in 34 reports (8794 abstracts). Results emanating from randomized or controlled trials showed the same pattern for both definitions (RR = 1.21; 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32 (15 reports and 2616 abstracts) and RR = 1.17; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.32 (13 reports and 2307 abstracts), respectively.Other factors associated with full publication include oral presentation (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.40 to 1.52; studied in 143 reports with 115,910 abstracts); acceptance for meeting presentation (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 1.48 to 1.85; 22 reports with 22,319 abstracts); randomized trial design (RR = 1.51; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.67; 47 reports with 28,928 abstracts); and basic research (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82; 92 reports with 97,372 abstracts). Abstracts originating at an academic setting were associated with full publication (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.34 to 1.92; 34 reports with 16,913 abstracts), as were those considered to be of higher quality (RR = 1.46; 95% CI 1.23 to 1.73; 12 reports with 3364 abstracts), or having high impact (RR = 1.60; 95% CI 1.41 to 1.82; 11 reports with 6982 abstracts). Sensitivity analyses excluding reports that were abstracts themselves or classified as having a high risk of bias did not change these findings in any important way.In considering the reports of the methodology research that we included in this review, we found that reports published in English or from a native English-speaking country found significantly higher proportions of studies published in full, but that there was no association with year of report publication. The findings correspond to a proportion of abstracts published in full of 31.9% for all reports, 40.5% for reports in English, 42.9% for reports from native English-speaking countries, and 52.2% for both these covariates combined.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

More than half of results from abstracts, and almost a third of randomized trial results initially presented as abstracts fail to be published in full and this problem does not appear to be decreasing over time. Publication bias is present in that 'positive' results were more frequently published than 'not positive' results. Reports of methodology research written in English showed that a higher proportion of abstracts had been published in full, as did those from native English-speaking countries, suggesting that studies from non-native English-speaking countries may be underrepresented in the scientific literature. After the considerable work involved in adding in the more than 300 additional studies found by the February 2016 searches, we chose not to update the search again because additional searches are unlikely to change these overall conclusions in any important way.

Publication Fate of Abstracts Presented at Four British Surgical Meetings: An 11-Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

The gold standard for research is publication within a peer-reviewed journal. There is a discrepancy between the number of abstracts presented at scientific meetings and the number published as full articles. We identified publication rates for the 2012 meetings of four British surgical societies. These were the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain & Ireland (ASGBI), the Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland, the British Transplantation Society (BTS), and the Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI). We also compared publication rates with these societies' 2001 meetings and identified univariate factors associated with publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed was searched to identify publications stemming from meeting abstracts. We extracted abstract characteristics to identify factors associated with publication and also characteristics of subsequent publications to enable comparison.

RESULTS

Publication rates were 24.1% (ASGBI), 24.6% (BTS), 21.7% (ACPGBI), and 39.4% (Vascular Society of Great Britain and Ireland). Rates for ASGBI, BTS, and ACPGBI meetings were significantly lower compared to 2001 meetings (P = 0.001-0.026). Mean time to publication was 12.1-22.0 mo. Mean 5-y impact factor differed significantly between meetings (P = 0.001), with the BTS meeting having the highest mean 5-y impact factor (4.658). Factors associated with publication included being an oral presentation (ASGBI P = 0.001), multi-institution study (ASGBI P = 0.003), or randomized-controlled trial (BTS P = 0.049).

CONCLUSIONS

Reduced publication rates may represent increased acceptance of low-quality abstracts at meetings or a more competitive journal submission process. Further data are required to strengthen conclusions. Nonetheless, authors and meeting organizers should push for higher quality abstracts to promote future peer-reviewed journal publication.

Publication outcomes for research presented at a Canadian surgical conference

BACKGROUND

The failure of investigators to publish research in peer-reviewed journals following acceptance at a national or international meeting can lead to significant publication biases in the literature. Our objective was to evaluate the abstract to manuscript conversion rate for abstracts presented at the Canadian Society for Vascular Surgery (CSVS) annual meeting and to evaluate the conversion rate for CSVS-awarded research grants.

METHODS

We searched for authors of abstracts accepted at the CSVS Annual Meeting (2007-2013) and recipients of CSVS research awards (2005-2013) on Scopus and PubMed databases to identify related publications.

RESULTS

We identified 84 publications from 188 research abstracts (45%) and 17 publications from 39 research grants (44%). The mean time to publication was 1.8 years and the mean impact factor was 2.7. Studies related to endovascular therapies demonstrated a trend toward a higher rate of publication relative to open surgical therapies (64 [56%] v. 37 [27%]). Additionally, we observed a similar trend in research grant topics related to endovascular therapies relative to open surgical therapies (9 [67%] v. 8 [38%]). Finally, CSVS research grant recipients who subsequently published had a significantly higher h-index at the time of receipt than those who had not published.

CONCLUSION

The CSVS annual meeting's abstract to publication conversion rate is comparable to that of its Canadian peers as well as to other medical specialties; however, a substantial publication gap remains. We identified several potential areas that may help to improve the effectiveness of CSVS research grants.

Factors affecting peer-reviewed publication of abstracts presented at meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (2008-2012)

PURPOSE

To review abstracts presented at five consecutive meetings of the European College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists (ECVO), and identify abstract characteristics that affect the probability of their publication in peer-reviewed journals.

METHODS

An online search was conducted for peer-reviewed publications (PRPs) stemming from abstracts from five ECVO meetings (2008-2012). Time to publication and journal were noted. Effects of ocular tissue/discipline, species, type of presentation and study, funding acknowledgment and affiliation, professional qualifications, and nationality of the first and last authors on probability of publication were analyzed.

RESULTS

Of presented abstracts, 29% (87/299) were published as PRPs in Veterinary Ophthalmology (n = 50), other veterinary journals (n = 22), and nonveterinary journals (n = 15). During the 5 years studied, there was no significant difference between the impact factor of Veterinary Ophthalmology and the 25 other journals in which PRPs were published (P = 0.369). Median time to PRP acceptance or publication was 468 days. Independent variables most significant in determining the probability of PRP were oral presentation (P = 0.002), resident authorship (P < 0.0001), and species (P = 0.002), with food animal abstracts having the highest odds ratio. Ocular tissue/discipline (P = 0.13) and type of study (P = 0.33) did not affect publication probability. Funding acknowledgment (P = 0.02), author nationality (P = 0.02), and academic affiliation (P = 0.04) were also significant factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication rate of ECVO abstracts is lower, but time to publication is similar, compared with most biomedical meetings.

Publication fate of abstracts presented at British association of clinical anatomists annual meetings

Dissemination of research is an integral part of the scientific process. Failure to disseminate research limits the scope for critical appraisal and potentially wastes valuable resources. The gold standard for dissemination of research is peer-reviewed publication following presentation at a national meeting. The primary objective of this study was quantitative assessment of the abstracts presented at British Association of Clinical Anatomists (BACA) summer and winter meetings with regards to the rates of subsequent publication and comparison to other medical specialties. Published abstracts from the summer and winter meetings of BACA between the years of 2000 and 2014 were analyzed. MEDLINE was searched to identify peer-reviewed publications arising from each presented abstract. In total, 1,807 abstracts were presented between the years of 2000 and 2014. The mean number of abstracts presented each year was 60.2, (range 26-157). In total, 20.4% of abstracts were subsequently published in MEDLINE-indexed journals with a median publication time of 19 months. The mean number of cadaveric prosections was 45.2 ± 78.8, (range 1-960). Analysis of abstracts focusing on radiographic imaging found the mean number of scans was 224.4 ± 807.1, (range 1-6,439). Biannual meetings of BACA are a forum for the presentation of high-quality anatomical research. BACA meeting abstracts have generally reduced publication rates compared to some surgical specialty meetings; however, there is no analysis available for an equivalent anatomical meeting. Further work should try to identify reasons that may hinder or limit subsequent publication of the anatomy abstracts presented at BACA. Clin. Anat. 30:133-139, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Publication fate of abstracts presented at Society of British Neurological Surgeons meetings

INTRODUCTION

Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS) meetings are important national events which allow for the presentation of current academic work. The publication rate of presented abstracts is considered a proxy marker of the scientific strength of a conference. We aimed to determine the publication fate of presented abstracts at SBNS meetings over a 5-year period.

METHODS

A retrospective review of SBNS conference proceedings between 2001 and 2005 was performed. To ascertain whether an abstract resulted in peer-reviewed publication, a range of databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline and Ovid) were interrogated. Abstracts published in full were subsequently assessed for journal impact factor (IF), time of publication and number of citations received (per Google Scholar).

RESULTS

A total of 494 abstracts were presented. Of these, 181 abstracts were subsequently published in full, giving the conference a publication rate of 36.6%. The mean time to publication from presentation was 22 months (range 35 months pre-presentation to 133 months afterwards). The top three journals for publication were the British Journal of Neurosurgery (23.2%), Neurosurgery (7.7%) and Journal of Neurosurgery (7.7%). The IF of journal destinations ranged from no IF to 38.28 (median=1.97). Number of citations ranged from 0 to 963 (median=22). Abstracts with positive results were significantly more likely to be published in full compared to those with negative results (p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

SBNS conferences have a respectable publication rate. Those abstracts that are published in full have gone on to gain a considerable number of citations reflecting their scientific relevance. However, studies presented at SBNS are susceptible to positive outcome bias.

The fate of abstracts presented at annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland from 1993 to 2007

Although the presentation of original research to learned societies is valuable, the target should be publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Therefore, the strength of a meeting may be assessed by the rate of the subsequent publication of papers from the presented abstracts. We conducted an analysis of abstracts presented at consecutive annual meetings of the Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery (SCTS) in Great Britain and Ireland over a 15-year period. Abstract books and other documentation from the 1993-2007 meetings were reviewed; abstracts from other major Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings held in 2007 were also reviewed. Medline was searched to identify the peer-reviewed publications arising from each work presented. For abstracts presented at SCTS in 2003-07, the factors potentially associated with publication were analysed by logistic regression. If no publications were identified, authors were contacted through a standardized email questionnaire to ascertain its status and reasons for non-publication. Over the 15-year period, 909 abstracts were presented at the SCTS meetings. The rate of publication rose from ~30% in the mid-1990s to consistently >60% from recent meetings, with a high of 81.3% from 2006. However, in comparison with other Cardiothoracic Surgery meetings in 2007, the chance of subsequent publication from SCTS (66.7%) was lower than from the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (75.0%), the American Association for Thoracic Surgery (83.9%) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (72.5%) meetings. For abstracts presented at the last five SCTS meetings, publication was most commonly in a speciality journal (56.3%) and the median time for publication was 15 months (range -24 to 63 months) with 14 papers published prior to presentation at the meeting. On regression analysis, the only factor associated with publication was the study design comparing randomized trials and systematic reviews with other types of study (P < 0.01). Of the 90 unpublished abstracts, 48 (53.3%) authors replied to an email questionnaire revealing that 41 (85.4%) were never submitted for publication. The most common reasons given were low priority (29.6%) and low likelihood of acceptance (24.1%). In recent years, the annual meeting of the Society has become a forum for the presentation of high-quality research that usually withstands peer-review, most commonly in a speciality journal. The rate of publication has increased to consistently >60%, although those that remain unpublished are generally never submitted. This compares favourably with national meetings of other surgical societies, although it is lower than other major cardiothoracic meetings which have an affiliated journal. At a time when it has been suggested that medical research in the UK is in decline, cardiothoracic surgery appears to be thriving.

An analysis of abstracts presented to the college on problems of drug dependence meeting and subsequent publication in peer review journals

Background

Subsequent publication rate of abstracts presented at meetings is seen as an indicator of the interest and quality of the meeting. We have analyzed characteristics and rate publication in peer-reviewed journals derived from oral communications and posters presented at the 1999 College on Problems of Drug Dependence (CPDD) meeting.

Methods

All 689 abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting were reviewed. In order to find the existence of publications derived from abstracts presented at that meeting, a set of bibliographical searches in the database Medline was developed in July 2006. Information was gathered concerning the abstracts, articles and journals in which they were published.

Results

254 out of 689 abstracts (36.9%) gave rise to at least one publication. The oral communications had a greater likelihood of being published than did the posters (OR = 2.53, 95% CI 1.80-3.55). The average time lapse to publication of an article was 672.97 days. The number of authors per work in the subsequent publications was 4.55. The articles were published in a total of 84 journals, of which eight were indexed with the subject term Substance-Related Disorders. Psychopharmacology (37 articles, 14.5%) was the journal that published the greatest number of articles subsequent to the abstracts presented at the 1999 CPDD meeting.

Conclusion

One out of every three abstracts presented to the 1999 CPDD meeting were later published in peer-reviewed journals indexed in Medline. The subsequent publication of the abstracts presented in the CPDD meetings should be actively encouraged, as this maximizes the dissemination of the scientific research and therefore the investment.

[Publication rate for oral presentations made at the Journées Dermatologiques de Paris meeting]

BACKGROUND

The fate of oral presentations presented at a dermatological meeting has not been assessed to date. Our aim was to determine the publication rate for oral presentations presented at the "Journées dermatologiques de Paris" (JDP) meeting in peer-reviewed journals. Our secondary goals were to identify factors associated with publication and to examine the consistency of reporting of research findings presented in the conference abstract and subsequent full publication.

METHODS

Abstracts presented orally at the JDP 1999-2004 were identified in the book of congress abstracts. Two independent operatives performed a Medline search cross-referencing lead and last authors and keywords.

RESULTS

The publication rate was 57.6% with mean time to publication of 20.3months. The median impact factor was 2.8. Factors associated with subsequent publication were study topic (p=0.04 for oncology) and study type (p=0.03 for fundamental research and p=0.005 for randomized controlled trials). The congress abstracts and full-text publication differed primarily in terms of sample size and data given in the "Results" section.

DISCUSSION

More than half of all abstracts presented orally at the JDP congress are subsequently published in journals with a median impact factor comparable to those seen for other scientific congresses for which similar analysis has been conducted. These results confirm the scientific quality of this particular congress, in addition to its vocation of continuous medical training.

An observational study of the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference, 2000 and subsequent publication in indexed journals

Aims:

To determine the quality of reporting in the proceedings of the All India Ophthalmological Conference (AIOC) 2000, subsequent rate of publication in an indexed journal and differences between the proceedings and the journal version of these papers.

Design:

Observational study.

Materials and Methods:

All papers presented at the AIOC 2000 were retrieved from the proceedings and assessed for completeness of reporting. To determine the subsequent full publication, a Medline search was performed as of January 2007; consistency between the proceedings paper and the final publication was evaluated. Statistical analysis: Chi square and Fisher′s exact tests were used to compare publication rates based on geographical location, subspecialty and study design; Student′s t-test was used to compare differences based on the number of authors and sample size.

Results:

Two hundred papers were retrieved; many failed to include study dates, design or statistical methods employed. Thirty-three (16.5%) papers were subsequently published in indexed journals by January 2007. The published version differed from the proceedings paper in 27 (81.8%) instances, mostly relating to changes in author name, number or sequence.

Conclusions:

The overall quality of reporting of scientific papers in the proceedings of the AIOC 2000 was inadequate and many did not result in publication in an indexed journal. Differences between the published paper in journals and in proceedings were seen in several instances. Ophthalmologists should be cautious about using the information provided in conference proceedings in their ophthalmic practice.

SUS/AAS abstracts: what is the scientific impact?

AIM

To evaluate the scientific impact of presentations at the annual meetings of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) and the Association for Academic Surgery (AAS).

METHODS

All Abstracts presented at the 2002-2004 annual conferences were examined for publication rate (PR), publication citation (PC) and journal impact factor (IF).

RESULTS

Overall, 1200 abstracts from the SUS (n = 543,45%) and AAS (n = 657,55%) were reviewed. One way ANOVA analysis of SUS results across session types demonstrated significant differences in PR (89% plenary, 81% parallel, 100% basic science, 47% resident conference, poster 76%, p < 0.0001), but no difference in PC (12.96 plenary, 9.66 parallel, 7.77 basic science, 8.23 resident conference, 8.21 poster, p = 0.25561) or IF (4.17 plenary, 3.50 parallel, 2.66 basic science, 3.12 resident conference 3.13 poster, p = 0.3947). AAS results demonstrated significant differences for PR (81% plenary, 62% parallel and 43% poster, p < 0.0001), CR (8.33 plenary, 4.81 parallel, and 4.78 poster, p = 0.006) and IF (3.75 plenary, 2.64 parallel, and 2.73 poster, p = 0.0124). Comparison of abstracts between meetings demonstrated a higher overall PR, CR and IF for SUS publications (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

These data suggest that SUS and AAS presentations constitute high-quality research, Trends towards higher PR, PC and IF for plenary sessions indicate that the review process properly stratifies research. Statistically higher impact measures for SUS presentations are consistent with the more mature research careers of SUS members.