Arthurs, OJ

Shelmerdine, SC

UCL Discovery

Pediatric Radiology Presentation to Publication: Institutional and Individual Factors--Manuscript Draft-- Manuscript Number: PRAD-D-16-00449Full Title: Presentation to Publication: Institutional and Individual FactorsArticle Type: Letter to the EditorFunding Information:Corresponding Author: Cory PfeiferPhoenix Children's HospitalUNITED STATESCorresponding Author SecondaryInformation:Corresponding Author's Institution: Phoenix Children's HospitalCorresponding Author's SecondaryInstitution:First Author: Cory PfeiferFirst Author Secondary Information:Order of Authors: Cory PfeiferOrder of Authors Secondary Information:Author Comments:Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems CorporationPresentation to Publication: Institutional and Individual Factors Cory M. Pfeifer, MD*              *corresponding author Department of Medical Imaging Phoenix Children’s Hospital 1919 E Thomas Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 cpfeifer@phoenixchildrens.com 602-933-1213  No financial support was provided for this study. The author has no conflict of interest to report. Title Page1 Letter to editor 1 Presentation to publication: institutional and individual factors 2  3 Dear Editor, 4  The recent article detailing the proportion of abstracts published from the Society for 5 Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and European Society of Paediatric Radiology (ESPR) annual 6 meetings (1) addresses important themes in modern pediatric radiology but fails to capture the 7 root cause of disparities in publication rates. 8  The authors describe a limitation in the discussion that studies accepted for an oral 9 presentation were presumed to be eventually submitted for journal publication, however, this 10 contention is erroneously misconceived and likely accounts for a large share of the disparity 11 between meeting presentations and publications. The premise underlying the authors’ notion is 12 that a publication is more valuable than a meeting presentation, but in the United States (which 13 claimed over half of the abstracts examined), radiology residents (who regularly spearhead such 14 research) commonly receive funding from sponsoring institutions to attend meetings based on 15 accepted abstracts which confers inherent value to the meeting presentation not necessarily 16 implicit to a publication which is of little value to a resident interested in private practice. 17 Likewise, increasing the number of meeting presentations increases the potential fund of 18 knowledge presented at the meeting without the level of scrutiny required for a publication 19 which incentivizes professional societies to host a wider array of presenters. In contrast, journal 20 space is typically limited to studies meeting a higher standard of quality. 21  I consider a peer-reviewed publication to represent a quantum of evidence that leads to 22 generalizable knowledge while I judge the intent of a meeting presentation (which is often 23 Blinded Manuscript Click here to view linked References2 limited to ten minutes or less) to convey an observation set comprised of initial correlational 24 findings relevant to the interests of the meeting audience. A meeting presentation is thus not 25 necessarily intended to represent the finished product of a scientific investigation which also 26 explains why so many meeting presentations do not result in publication. 27  While many readers of scientific journals ascribe value to publication authorship as a 28 result of personal career satisfaction or as a method to attain academic promotion, the vast 29 majority of pediatric radiologists in the United States (where the authors attribute greater access 30 to academic resources) are compensated on the basis of clinical productivity and often lack the 31 time or means necessary to convert observations presented at meetings into generalizable 32 knowledge. This includes a significant portion of pediatric radiologists who work in conjunction 33 with academic radiology programs. In review of the original articles published in Pediatric 34 Radiology in 2015, approximately 1 in 3 of the manuscripts stem from work at one of the 25 35 largest children’s hospitals in the United States, and of these papers, roughly 60% originated 36 from one of the top 3 children’s hospitals according to US News and Report (2). It is not 37 surprising that these 3 institutions also trained 30% of all pediatric radiology fellows 38 participating in the accredited US programs during the 2015-2016 academic year (3). I posit to 39 the authors that institution size or the presence of trainees specific to pediatric radiology are 40 likely stronger correlates to publication success than the elements measured. As to the finding of 41 author inflation between presentation and publication, I further suggest that the inflation is likely 42 to be greater in publications arising from institutions with strong relationships between academic 43 productivity and career advancement among faculty. There is no reason to suggest that simply 44 having more authors should increase likelihood of publication which makes such a hypothesis 45 irrelevant (though later proven in the article nonetheless). 46 3  The authors state that impact factor (IF) is frequently used to indicate the relative 47 importance of a journal within its field, but the perpetuation of this classical perception is mired 48 in fallacy. I consider Pediatric Radiology, for instance, to be the most important journal for those 49 who practice predominantly in this subspecialty because it is the official publication of the most 50 important professional societies in the field and is subscribable via society membership even 51 though the journal IF is likely negatively impacted as a result of accepting case reports which are 52 rarely cited by other papers (4). If there is a topic of interest most relevant to pediatric 53 radiologists, I agree with the prior sentiment of Donnelly (5) that this journal is the most 54 appropriate venue for submission, and I am greatly disappointed when subspecialty journals are 55 passed over for harder-to-access serials simply to associate such papers with higher IF journals. 56 If high caliber research is rendered harder to access as a result of chasing IF, it defeats the 57 purpose of good science. 58  I agree with the authors that value should be assigned to sound hypothesis-driven 59 research and look forward to future articles in Pediatric Radiology encompassing this principle. 60  61 References 62 1. Shelmerdine SC, Lynch JO, Langan D, Arthurs OJ (2016) Presentation to publication: 63 proportion of abstracts published for ESPR, SPR, and IPR. Ped Radiol doi:10.1007/s00247-64 016-3653-4. 65 2. Best Children’s Hospitals 2016-2017: Honor Roll and Overview. Available at: 66 http://health.usnews.com/health-news/best-childrens-hospitals/articles/2015/06/09/best-67 childrens-hospitals-2015-16-honor-roll-and-overview. Accessed 1 September 2016. 68 4 3. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-Public. Available at: 69 https://apps.acgme.org/ads/public/. Accessed 1 June 2016. 70 4. Choudhri AF, Siddiqui A, Khan NR, Cohen HL (2015) Understanding bibliometric 71 parameters and analysis. Radiographics 35:736-746. 72 5. Donnelly LF (2000) Articles on pediatric imaging in Pediatric Radiology, AJR, and 73 Radiology. Pediatr Radiol 30:720-721. 74   Conflict of Interest FormClick here to access/downloadConflict of Interest FormPedRadCOI.pdf

Reply regarding 'Presentation to publication: institutional and individual factors'

http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/10058663/1/PRAD-D-16-00449%20letter.pdf

Reply regarding 'Presentation to publication: institutional and individual factors'

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UCL Discovery