From Abstract to Publication: Factors Predictive of Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgery Publication Success

Andrew C Berry, DO¹, Brooks D Cash, MD², Joel E Richter, MD³, Kandace Kichler, MD⁴, Bin Wang, PhD⁵, Madhuri Mulekar, PhD⁵, Ashlyn S Morse, MA⁶, Julia R Amundson, BS⁶, Sajjad Ahmad, MD¹, Nikhil Agrawal, MBBS⁷, Dipan Uppal, MBBS⁷, Ankita Kapoor, MBBS⁷, William O Richards, MD⁸. ¹Department of Medicine, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA, ²Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA, ³Department of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition, Joy McCann Culverhouse Center for Swallowing Disorders, University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, FL, USA, ⁴Department of Surgery, University of Miami: Palm Beach Regional Campus, Atlantis, FL, USA, ⁵Department of Biostatistics, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA, ⁶University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA, ⁷Maulana Azad Medial College , University of Delhi , New Delhi , 110002, India, ⁸Department of Surgery, University of South Alabama, Mobile, AL, USA

Introduction: We aimed to determine specific abstract characteristics associated with subsequent successful peer-reviewed publication after presentation at the annual Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) meeting. It remains unclear what percentage of accepted research abstracts proceed to manuscript publication and which characteristics predict success. Awareness of such factors could assist researchers, meeting organizers, and meeting attendees identify more impactful abstract presentations.

Methods: We evaluated every accepted abstract from the 2012 SAGES annual meeting (n=986). Study characteristics were extracted from the publicly listed abstract and searched on PubMed by title, first and last author names, and institutional matching. Of those abstracts identified as published by 3 years (e-published) from 2012-conference date (March 10, 2012), time to publication (acceptance, e-publication, and journal publication dates) and impact factor of accepted journal were recorded. Numerous other characteristics were recorded and analyzed: Submission type, abstract link availability, submission category, type of study, clinical or basic science study, study size and design, author demographics (Author NIH top 50, multi-institution authors, number authors, degree), etc. A prediction model for abstract publication success was constructed using these variables.

Results: Of 986 total abstracts, 248 (25.15%) were published (e-published) by three years after the 2012 SAGES conference. Of these, included is the abstract average time (in years) to acceptance (0.56 +/-0.81), to e-publication (0.79 +/-0.86), and final journal publication (1.11 +/-0.82). The mean impact factor of journals was 2.86 +/-1.97. Of accepted articles, 78.0% were published in U.S. journals, 38.5% had additional authors from the abstract, and 49.8% had final manuscript author order alterations. The table below depicts numerous analyzed factors positively or negatively associated with publication rates, acceptance time, journal ranking, and U.S. journal publication. Notable findings include: PhD author involvement associated with higher publication rates, quicker acceptance time, and higher impact U.S. journals. Basic science studies or studies with statistical department listed had higher publication rates. Meta-analysis studies and studies with a NIH Top50 author were published in higher impact factor U.S. journals.

Conclusions: A significant number of abstracts remain unpublished by 3 years. Numerous analyzed factors are positively or negatively associated with publication rates, acceptance time, and journal ranking. One must determine whether shear number of publications, time to publication, or journal impact factor is top priority and design studies predictive of such success.