Presentation to Publication in Neuroanesthesia
Presentations in the form of the platform (oral) and poster discussions are norms during the scientific meetings, including continued medical education activities. These presentations may be in a competitive category or noncompetitive (free paper) formats. The main objective for encouraging these scientific presentations is to bring to light new research and simultaneously fill the gap in existing knowledge. The usual categories of presentations include research papers and case reports. In addition, some of the conferences also promote presentations/exhibitions of innovations, infographics, etc. The research work gets the credit in this process, and the researcher/presenter gets due recognition on a bigger platform with a large audience. Moreover, such presentations also help enhance the verbal communication skills of the presenters, some of whom transform into brilliant speakers of national and international repute. In concordance with the scientific presentations, publications in journals give the highest degree of credibility to the research work, a wider gamut of readers, and even greater recognition to the researchers. However, a matter of some concern is the successful translation of these presentations into scientific publications in indexed journals.
Krishnakumar et al performed an audit and retrospective analysis in the context of the full-text publications of presentations after neuroanesthesia meetings. They found that only 17.5% (40/229) of the presentations that were presented over 5 years (2014–2018) in the annual conferences of the Indian Society of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care (ISNACC) translated into publications in national (45%) and international (55%) journals. The conversion rate from presentation to publication was significantly lower than that of most meetings of other anesthesia societies. The authors have also observed that the publication rate had declined considerably from 21% in 2014 to 8% in 2018. Prospective cohort studies, randomized trials, and abstracts from academic/public institutions were significantly associated with publications after conference presentations. It is an interesting observation in view of what happens to the neuroanesthesia presentations in India, but the study has apparent limitations being retrospective in nature. It is unknown whether most of these unpublished presentations were actually submitted to a journal and underwent peer-reviewing and got rejected. It is also not known whether there was any difference in conversion rate between platform versus poster presentations. Platform/ oral presentations are most often competitive presentations and undergo a stringent peer-review process. Hence, there is a possibility that the conversion rate of presentations into publications could be better.
Several factors may be responsible for the nonconversion of presentations into publications. First, the organizing scientific committee in most of the conferences hardly rejects any abstract that is submitted for presentation. Ideally, there should be a balance between quality and quantity while accepting the scientific abstracts. The existing process of encouraging scientific presentations for each interested unintentionally invites low-quality research works for presentation. These presentations eventually fail to undergo a stringent peer-review process during the publication cycle. Second, it is common to present the interim results of the research works during the meeting. While the study may be innovative and well-designed at the time of presentation, by the time it is completed and drafted, articles of similar objectives might get published by different researchers, thereby losing their relevance and low consideration for publication. Third, many journals currently do not consider case reports for publication, despite being widely encouraged for presentations during conferences. Moreover, the scope of publication from private hospitals is much less as compared with academic/public-funded institutions. This is because of the lack of research mentorship and encouragement with grants for research activities. More than that, there is no special consideration for career advancement owing to publications. Other contributory factors include poor quality of research, weak methodology, trying to prove something that is already proven, lack of certification from the institutional ethics committee (IEC), nonregistration of prospective studies in clinical trial registries (CTR), failure to obtain appropriate written informed consent from the study participants, and the lack of interest of authors for publications for various reasons.
Regarding neuroanesthesia, the number of journals available for such subspecialty is relatively less as compared with broad specialties, for example, anesthesiology. Therefore, selecting an appropriate journal is also important at the time of article submission. Neuroanesthesia per se is not only a part of anesthesia but also that of neurosciences. Hence, it is crucial to identify the scope of a neuroscience journal for a neuroanesthesia publication after a particular research work. The conversion rate of publication of neurosurgical articles has also been better than neuroanesthesia.  That sometimes broadens the scope of publication on a neuro topic. The chances of publication may be further narrowed down if a journal is published with a lesser frequency per year (e.g., biannually or quarterly) instead of monthly or fortnight issues in broad specialty journals. Nonetheless, not many neuroscience journals have provision for the publication of case reports, and thus, the conversion rate to publication is usually compromised.
To improve the conversion rate of presentations to publications, the best strategy would probably be to conduct rigorous double-blinded peer review of abstracts. The peer-review process should include methodological aspects and adherence to conference guidelines for abstracts. In addition, participating in research methodology workshops can help substantially understand the concepts and process of conducting good quality research. Finally, remedial measures to improve publication rates may include obtaining approval from all the relevant authorities (IEC and CTR) prior to the commencement of the study, obtaining consent from the study participants, adopting a strong and clear study methodology, adhering to the proper conduct of research, provision of grants to the authors for research and assistance in manuscript writing, and selection of appropriate peer-reviewed journal.
Artikel online veröffentlicht:
30. Mai 2022
© 2022. Indian Society of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial-License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India
- 1 Krishnakumar M, Sundaram M, Chakrabarti D, Sriganesh K. Full-text publications of presentations at neuroanesthesia meetings of India: a 5-year audit and analysis. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2021 DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_4_21.
- 2 Ekşi MŞ, Özcan-Ekşi EE. Publication rates of the abstracts presented at the annual meeting of International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery. 2018; 19: 258-828
- 3 Patel AJ, Cherian J, Fox BD. et al. Publication patterns of oral and poster presentations at the annual meetings of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. J Neurosurg 2011; 115 (06) 1258-1261