Publication Barriers of Oral Abstracts From the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons: 2010-2014

Publication Rates for Oral Manuscript and Poster Presentations from the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons: 2015-2019

The quality of national society conferences is often assessed indirectly by analyzing the journal publication rate of the abstracts presented. The conversion rate of abstracts presented at the annual American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons conference is currently the highest reported (76.9%) for any foot and ankle society to date. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to re-assess the journal publication rate for abstracts (oral manuscript, poster) accepted for presentation at the annual meeting, this time from 2015 to 2019. All accepted abstracts from this period were compiled in a database. PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus searches were performed using abstract titles, and author names. The journal publication rate was 80.7% (92/114) for oral manuscripts, and 23.1% (287/1240) for poster abstracts. The mean time to publication was 18.7 months (0 to 75), and 19.1 months (0 to 88) for oral manuscript and posters, respectively. The most common journal for abstract publication was The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery. The American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons oral manuscript publication rate from 2015 to 2019 (80.7%) exceeded the previous reported rate from 2010 to 2014 (76.9%), and is now the highest reported for any national foot and ankle society to date. Attendees of the oral presentations, and readers of the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery may remain confident in the quality, and clinical significance of the research presented.

Incidence of Scholarly Publication by Selected Content Experts Presenting at National Society Foot and Ankle Meetings From 2016 to 2020

Continuing medical education (CME) is an important element to maintain licensing requirements, enhance professional competence, and disseminate up to date, evidence-based, treatment recommendations. A key resource of CME are the 2 annual society meetings hosted by the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons (ACFAS) and American Orthopedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS). It is assumed that the selected speakers at these meetings are content experts, providing validated expertise on treatment recommendations, rather than anecdotal experience or opinion. Across all medical specialists, peer-reviewed publication(s) on a particular subject matter have long bestowed the ultimate validity of "expertise." The purpose of this study was to assess the incidence of scholarly publication for invited speakers at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020, in relation to the topic they were selected to present. A review of invited lectures given at the ACFAS and AOFAS annual meetings from 2016 to 2020 was conducted, and lecturer demographics were categorized into predetermined content areas for assessment. Selected speakers were individually cross-referenced with content-specific peer-reviewed published literature, and overall h-index using Scopus. Topic and society specific comparisons were then made. Overall, 1028 lectures were identified during the temporal period. Only 300 (29.18%) presentations were given by a speaker with least one or more publication on the society specific lecture-topic presented. The greatest proportion of lecturers with content-specific publications was Charcot reconstruction (67.57%) followed by ankle fusion/replacement (55%). The average presenter h-index was greatest among total ankle replacement/ankle fusion (12.16 ± 6.90) and Charcot reconstruction (11.27 ± 7.10) content. The results of the present study illustrate a disparity of expertise among different content areas. While both meetings provide well-published lecturers, this study reveals areas for improvement.

Podiatric Medicine and Surgery Resident-Authored Publications in The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery: A Systematic Review

Since its introduction into the medical community, the Podiatric Medicine and Surgery residency has strived to graduate the most advanced and learned foot and ankle surgeons. From increasing length of training, to assuring didactics and education are sufficiently incorporated into the residency, the Council on Podiatric Medical Education has overseen this transition. One area of interest, podiatric medicine and research, remains central to this training and contributes to the field of foot and ankle surgery through journal publications. The purpose of this review was to identify Podiatric Medicine and Surgery resident-authored publication rates, trends, and geographic distribution. All published case reports, original research articles, review articles, and tips, quips, and pearls in The Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery from January 2009 to December 2018 were reviewed. Podiatric Medicine and Surgery residents comprised 8% of all authors. Residents contributed to and published as first authors in 22% and 11% of all manuscripts, respectively. An increasing trend in resident authors, resident-authored manuscripts, and resident-first-authored manuscripts was observed. From before the mandated 3-year residency to after, the proportion of resident-authored manuscripts to all manuscripts declined from 9.99% to 7.21%; however, among these resident-authored publications, the rate of first-authorship increased from 45.32% to 51.36%. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first and only study to examine publication rates among foot and ankle surgery residents.

Factors Associated with and Barriers to the Journal Publication of Oral Abstracts from the American Podiatric Medical Association

Not all abstracts accepted for oral presentation at the annual conference of the American Podiatric Medical Association ultimately go on to successfully navigate the peer-review process to achieve journal publication despite its obvious merits. The purpose of the present study was to identify the factors associated with and barriers to journal publication and time to publication for oral abstracts from the American Podiatric Medical Association conference from 2010 to 2014. Databases containing information on the abstracts were procured and predictor variables categorized as abstract- or author-specific. Bivariate analysis was conducted using the Mann-Whitney U test, Fisher's exact test, chi-square test of independence, or Spearman rank correlation. Multivariable logistic regression and generalized linear regression models were used to analyze predictor variables. A questionnaire was distributed to the primary authors of any unpublished abstracts to determine the current status of the abstract, in addition to the reasons for the failure to pursue or achieve journal publication. Overall, oral abstracts by authors without a formal research degree were published more often than abstracts by authors with a research degree, as were funded projects (P = .031). No other associations were identified between any of the abstract- and author-specific variables and successful conversion of an oral abstract to a journal publication or the time to publication. Six barriers questionnaires were completed. At the time of the survey, two oral abstracts had since achieved publication, two had been submitted for publication but were rejected, and two had never been submitted. The principal reason cited by the authors for the failure to pursue or achieve journal publication was insufficient time for manuscript preparation.

Barriers to Full Text Journal Publication of Abstracts Presented at Annual AAOMS Meetings

PURPOSE

The purpose of the present study was to identify the perceived barriers to full-text journal publication (JP) from abstracts presented at the 2010-2013 American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) meetings.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In the present cross-sectional study, all unpublished AAOMS abstracts (n = 473) from the temporal period were procured using a database from a previous publication. An online questionnaire was then distributed to the primary or secondary author for whom an e-mail address was available through the AAOMS Member Directory (n = 260) to assess 1) the current publication status of the abstract; and 2) the perceived barriers to JP. The responses were summarized with descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 260 authors surveyed, 51 responded, for a response rate of 19.6%. At the time of the survey, 66.7% of the authors stated that submission for JP had not been pursued, and 15.7% stated that the abstract had achieved JP. However, no citations were provided. Overall, a low perceived priority (52.9%), insufficient time (50%), methodologic limitations (23.5%), and inadequate institutional support (17.6%) were the 4 primary reasons cited by the authors for the failure to pursue or achieve JP.

CONCLUSIONS

JP of abstracts presented at the annual AAOMS meeting is very low, with many barriers to JP of presented abstracts.