Advertisement

Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 33, Issue 7, pp 1002–1003 | Cite as

Peer Review of Abstracts Submitted to An Internal Medicine National Meeting: Is It a Predictor of Future Publication?

  • Cecilia Scholcoff
  • Payal Sanghani
  • Wilkins Jackson
  • Heidi M. Egloff
  • Adam P. Sawatsky
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson
Concise Research Reports

INTRODUCTION

Scientific meetings are often the first step to sharing new research, but journal publication of that research is vital for dissemination. Prior studies are mixed about what specific factors are associated with subsequent high-impact publication of abstracts submitted to scientific meetings.1,2 While peer review by medical journals is reasonably successful in selecting high-impact articles,3,4 the evidence is less clear for peer review of abstracts, which contain less information and are potentially more difficult to assess. In addition, abstract reviewers for scientific meetings often have 10–20 diverse submissions to review. Peer review of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) meeting submissions has demonstrated internal consistency for clinical vignettes,5 but poor interrater reliability for scientific abstracts.6In this study, we hypothesized that abstract acceptance predicts eventual publication and that those publications will have higher impact compared...

KEY WORDS

publication rate research abstract scientific conference medicine research 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they do not have a conflict of interest.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    de Meijer VE, Knops SP, van Dongen JA, Eyck BM, Vles WJ. The fate of research abstracts submitted to a national surgical conference: a cross-sectional study to assess scientific impact. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):166–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Egloff HM, West CP, Wang AT, Lowe KM, Varayil JE, Beckman TJ, Sawatsky AP. Publication Rates of Abstracts Presented at the Society of General Internal Medicine Annual Meeting. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(6):673–8.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bormann L, Daniel HD. (2010) The usefulness of peer review for selecting manuscripts for publication: A utility analysis taking as an example a high-impact journal. PLoS One. 28: e11344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson JL, Srinivasan M, Rea J, Fletcher KE, Kravitz RL. The Validity of Peer Review in a General Medicine Journal. PLOS One. 2011;6(7):e22475CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Newsom J, Estrada CA, Panisko D, Willett L. Selecting the best clinical vignettes for academic meetings: should the scoring tool criteria be modified? J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(2):202–6CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rubin HR, Redelmeier DA, Wu AW, Steinberg EP. How reliable is peer review of scientific abstracts? Looking back at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine. J Gen Intern Med. 1993;8(5):255–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine (outside the USA) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cecilia Scholcoff
    • 1
    • 2
  • Payal Sanghani
    • 1
    • 2
  • Wilkins Jackson
    • 3
  • Heidi M. Egloff
    • 4
  • Adam P. Sawatsky
    • 5
  • Jeffrey L. Jackson
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Zablocki Veterans Affairs Medical CenterMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.University of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  4. 4.University of Michigan Health SystemAnn ArborUSA
  5. 5.Mayo ClinicRochesterUSA

Personalised recommendations