From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: Factors predicting publication and citation

European Heart Journal

Volumn 33, Issue 24, 2012, Pages 3034-3045

  Winnik, Stephan ^a,b   Raptis, Dimitri A ^a   Walker, Janina H ^c   Hasun, Matthias ^a   Speer, Thimotheus ^b   Clavien, Pierre Alain ^a,b   Komajda, Michel ^d   Bax, Jeroen J ^e   Tendera, Michal ^f   Fox, Kim ^g   Van De Werf, Frans ^h   Mundow, Ciara ⁱ   Lüscher, Thomas F ^a,b   Ruschitzka, Frank ^b   Matter, Christian M ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^c Kantonsspital Muensterlingen   (Switzerland)

^d SORBONNE UNIVERSITÉ   (France)

^e LEIDEN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

^f MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SILESIA   (Poland)

^g ROYAL BROMPTON HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^h UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS LEUVEN   (Belgium)

ⁱ European Society of Cardiology   (France)

Author keywords

Impact; Peer review; Publication; Scientific quality

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PEER REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SEX DIFFERENCE;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CARDIOLOGY; EDITORIAL POLICIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; MALE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLISHING; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SEX FACTORS;

EID: 84857991458     PISSN: 0195668X     EISSN: 15229645     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehs113     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. The European Society of Cardiology E. ESC Congresses Reports. http://www .escardio.org/congresses/esc-2011/Pages/welcome.aspx.
2. The European Society of Cardiology E. Past ESC Congresses. http://www.escardio .org/congresses/past-congresses/Pages/past-ESC-congresses. aspx.
3. Fisher M, Friedman SB, Strauss B. The effects of blinding on acceptance of research papers by peer review. JAMA 1994;272:143-146.
4. Garfunkel JM, Ulshen MH, Hamrick HJ, Lawson EE. Effect of institutional prestige on reviewers' recommendations and editorial decisions. JAMA 1994;272:137-138.
5. Olson CM, Rennie D, Cook D, Dickersin K, Flanagin A, Hogan JW, Zhu Q, Reiling J, Pace B. Publication bias in editorial decision making. JAMA 2002;287: 2825-2828.
6. Callaham ML, Wears RL, Weber EJ, Barton C, Young G. Positive-outcome bias and other limitations in the outcome of research abstracts submitted to a scientific meeting. JAMA 1998;280:254-257.
7. Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003; 290:495-501.
8. Raptis DA, Oberkofler CE, Gouma D, Garden OJ, Bismuth H, Lerut T, Clavien PA. Fate of the peer review process at the ESA: long-term outcome of submitted studies over a 5-year period. Ann Surg 2010;252:715-725.
9. Scherer RW, Dickersin K, Langenberg P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994;272:158-162.
10. Toma M, McAlister FA, Bialy L, Adams D, Vandermeer B, Armstrong PW. Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2006;295:1281-1287.
11. Ross JS, Gross CP, Desai MM, Hong Y, Grant AO, Daniels SR, Hachinski VC, Gibbons RJ, Gardner TJ, Krumholz HM. Effect of blinded peer review on abstract acceptance. JAMA 2006;295:1675-1680.
12. Bartlett JE, Kotrlik JW, Higgins CC. Organizational research: determining appropriate sample size in survey research. Info Technol Learn Perform J 2001;19:43-50.
13. Reuters T. ISI Web of Knowledge. http://apps.webofknowledge.com/UA- GeneralSearch-input.do?product=UA&search-mode=GeneralSearch&SID= 4B7Nb@C@ED49jmIB51P&preferencesSaved=.
14. von Elm E, Costanza MC,Walder B, Tramer MR. More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003;3:12.
15. Glasziou P, Vandenbroucke JP, Chalmers I. Assessing the quality of research. BMJ 2004;328:39-41.
16. Medicine TOCfE-B. Levels of Evidence-based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/ index .aspx?o=1025 (last update 2009; date last accessed).
17. Pendlebury DA. The use and misuse of journal metrics and other citation indicators. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009;57:1-11.
18. Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review. Crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA 1994;272:96-97.
19. Bailar JC 3rd, Patterson K. The need for a research agenda. N Engl J Med 1985; 312:654-657.
20. Abby M, Massey MD, Galandiuk S, Polk HC Jr. Peer review is an effective screening process to evaluate medical manuscripts. JAMA 1994;272:105-107.
21. Relman AS, Angell M. How good is peer review? N Engl J Med 1989;321:827-829.
22. Link AM. US and Non-US submissions: an analysis of reviewer bias. JAMA 1994; 272:246-247.
23. Laband DN, Piette MJ. A citation analysis of the impact of blinded peer review. JAMA 1994;272:147-149.
24. Ash AS, Carr PL, Goldstein R, Friedman RH. Compensation and advancement of women in academic medicine: is there equity? Ann Intern Med 2004;141: 205-212.
25. Tesch BJ, Wood HM, Helwig AL, Nattinger AB. Promotion of women physicians in academic medicine. Glass ceiling or sticky floor? JAMA 1995;273:1022-1025.
26. Kaplan SH, Sullivan LM, Dukes KA, Phillips CF, Kelch RP, Schaller JG. Sex differences in academic advancement. Results of a national study of pediatricians. N Engl J Med 1996;335:1282-1289.
27. LevinsonW, Lurie N. When most doctors are women: what lies ahead? Ann Intern Med 2004;141:471-474.
28. Garfield E. Citation indexes for science; a new dimension in documentation through association of ideas. Science 1955;122:108-111.
29. Garfield E. Is citation a legitimate evaluation tool? Scientometrics 1979;1:359-375.
30. Haeffner-Cavaillon N, Graillot-Gak C. The use of bibliometric indicators to help peer-review assessment. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009;57:33-38.
31. Moed HF. New developments in the use of citation analysis in research evaluation. Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz) 2009;57:13-18.