Unpublished research from a medical specialty meeting: why investigators fail to publish.

Abstract

It is not known whether peer review of research abstracts submitted to scientific meetings influences subsequent attempts at publication. To determine why research submitted to a scientific meeting is not subsequently published. We hypothesized that authors of abstracts rejected by a meeting are less likely to pursue publication than those whose abstracts are accepted, regardless of research quality. Blinded review of abstracts submitted to a medical specialty meeting in 1991 and not published as full manuscripts within 5 years. In 1996, authors of 266 unpublished studies were asked to complete questionnaires. Submission of a full manuscript to a journal between 1991 and 1996; failure to submit a manuscript to a journal because the investigator believed it would not be accepted for publication. A total of 223 (84%) of the unpublished investigators returned the questionnaire. Only 44 (20%) had submitted manuscripts to a journal. Manuscript submission was not associated with abstract quality (odds ratio [OR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.64), positive results (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.31-1.57), or other study characteristics. Having an abstract accepted for presentation at the meeting weakly predicted submission of a manuscript to a journal (OR, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.84-4.10). Authors of accepted abstracts were significantly less likely to believe a journal would not publish their manuscript than were authors of rejected abstracts (OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.0001-0.61). Study characteristics do not predict attempts to publish research submitted to a scientific meeting. Investigators whose research is rejected by a meeting are pessimistic about chances for publication and may make less effort to publish.