发表在《神经麻醉》杂志上的演讲

IF 0.2 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Ankur Khandelwal, G. Rath
{"title":"发表在《神经麻醉》杂志上的演讲","authors":"Ankur Khandelwal, G. Rath","doi":"10.1055/s-0042-1748313","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"institutions were significantly associated with publications after conference presentations.1 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 It is unknown whether most of these unpublished presentations were actually submitted to a journal and underwent peer-reviewing and got rejected.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.2 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 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 al1 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","PeriodicalId":16574,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Presentation to Publication in Neuroanesthesia\",\"authors\":\"Ankur Khandelwal, G. Rath\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0042-1748313\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"institutions were significantly associated with publications after conference presentations.1 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.2 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 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 al1 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\",\"PeriodicalId\":16574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1748313\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0042-1748313","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

机构与会议报告后的出版物显著相关这是一个有趣的观察,鉴于发生在印度的神经麻醉的介绍,但研究有明显的局限性是回顾性的性质。目前尚不清楚这些未发表的报告是否真的提交给了期刊,并经过了同行评审而被拒绝。我们也不知道平台与海报展示之间的转化率是否存在差异。平台/口头报告通常是竞争性的报告,并经过严格的同行评审过程。因此,有可能提高发言转化为出版物的比率有几个因素可能导致简报不能转化为出版物。首先,在大多数会议中,组织科学委员会几乎不会拒绝提交的任何摘要。理想情况下,在接受科学摘要的同时,应该在质量和数量之间取得平衡。现有的鼓励每个感兴趣的人进行科学报告的过程无意中邀请了低质量的研究工作进行报告。这些报告最终未能在出版周期中经过严格的同行评审过程。第二,在会议期间展示研究工作的中期成果是很常见的。虽然该研究在提交时可能具有创新性和良好的设计,但当它完成并起草时,类似目标的文章可能会由不同的研究人员发表,从而失去相关性和低考虑发表。第三,许多期刊目前不考虑发表病例报告,尽管它们被广泛鼓励在会议上发表报告。此外,与学术/公共资助机构相比,私立医院的出版范围要小得多。这是因为缺乏研究指导,在科学会议期间,包括继续的医学教育活动,以平台(口头)和海报讨论的形式进行报告是惯例。这些报告可以是竞争类别或非竞争(免费论文)格式。鼓励这些科学报告的主要目的是揭示新的研究,同时填补现有知识的空白。通常的报告类型包括研究论文和案例报告。此外,部分会议亦会推广创新、资讯图表等的介绍/展览。在这个过程中,研究工作得到了肯定,研究者/演讲者在更大的平台上得到了应有的认可。此外,这样的演讲也有助于提高演讲者的语言沟通能力,其中一些人变成了在国内和国际上享有盛誉的杰出演说家。与科学报告一致,期刊上的出版物给予研究工作最高程度的可信度,读者范围更广,甚至对研究人员的认可也更大。然而,一个值得关注的问题是,这些报告能否成功地翻译成索引期刊上的科学出版物。Krishnakumar等人1对神经麻醉会议后发表的全文出版物进行了审核和回顾性分析。他们发现,在印度神经麻醉学与重症监护学会(ISNACC)的5年(2014-2018年)年会上,只有17.5%(40/229)的报告被翻译成国家(45%)和国际(55%)期刊的出版物。从报告到发表的转化率明显低于其他麻醉学会的大多数会议。作者还观察到,发表率从2014年的21%大幅下降到2018年的8%。前瞻性队列研究、随机试验和学术/公众摘要
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Presentation to Publication in Neuroanesthesia
institutions were significantly associated with publications after conference presentations.1 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.2 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 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 al1 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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care
Journal of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信