High nonpublication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices

Carey, Luke C., Stretton, Serina, Kenreigh, Charlotte A., Wagner, Linda T. and Woolley, Karen L. (2016) High nonpublication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices. PeerJ, . doi:10.7717/peerj.2011


Author Carey, Luke C.
Stretton, Serina
Kenreigh, Charlotte A.
Wagner, Linda T.
Woolley, Karen L.
Title High nonpublication rate from publication professionals hinders evidence-based publication practices
Journal name PeerJ   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 2167-8359
Publication date 2016-05-10
Year available 2016
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.7717/peerj.2011
Open Access Status DOI
Total pages 6
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher PeerJ
Collection year 2017
Language eng
Formatted abstract
Background: The need for timely, ethical, and high-quality reporting of clinical trial results has seen a rise in demand for publication professionals. These publication experts, who are not ghostwriters, work with leading medical researchers and funders around the world to plan and prepare thousands of publications each year. Despite the involvement of publication professionals in an increasing number of peer-reviewed publications, especially those that affect patient care, there is limited evidence-based guidance in the peer-reviewed literature on their publication practices. Similar to the push for editors and the peer-review community to conduct and publish research on publication ethics and the peer-review process, the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) has encouraged members to conduct and publish research on publication planning and practices. Our primary objective was to investigate the publication rate of research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings.

Methods: ISMPP Annual Meeting abstract lists (April 2009-April 2014) were searched in November 2014 and data were extracted into a pilot-tested spreadsheet. MEDLINE was searched in December 2014 to determine the publication rate (calculated as the % of presented abstracts published as full papers in peer-reviewed journals). Data were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage trend test (significance: P <.05) by an independent academic statistician.

Results: From 2009 to 2014, there were 220 abstracts submitted, 185 accepted, and 164 presented. There were four corresponding publications (publication rate 2.4%). Over time, ISMPP's abstract acceptance rate (overall: 84.1%) did not change, but the number of abstracts presented increased significantly (P =.02). Most abstracts were presented as posters (81.1%) and most research was observational (72.6%). Most researchers came from the US (78.0%), followed by Europe (17.7%), and the Asia-Pacific region (11.2%).

Discussion: Research presented at ISMPP Annual Meetings has rarely been published in peer-reviewed journals. The high rate of nonpublication by publication professionals has now been quantified and is of concern. Publication professionals should do more to contribute to evidence-based publication practices, including, and especially, their own. Unless the barriers to publication are identified and addressed, the practices of publication professionals, which affect thousands of peer-reviewed publications each year, will remain hidden and unproven.
Keyword Evidence-based practice
ISMPP
Peer review
Publication
Publication professionals
Rate
Research
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: HERDC Pre-Audit
Admin Only - School of Medicine
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus Article
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 19 Jun 2016, 00:15:46 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)