Crossing the Death Valley of publication process in cornea and ocular surface diseases: from abstracts presented at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology annual meeting to full-text manuscripts.

PURPOSE

This study was conducted to analyze the profile and publication rate of abstracts in indexed journals presented in the cornea section at the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting and to further identify potential predictive factors for better outcomes.

METHODS

Abstracts accepted for presentation at the 2013 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Annual Meeting in the cornea section were sought via PubMed and Scopus to identify whether they had been published as full-text manuscripts. First author's name, time of publication, journal's name, and impact factor were recorded. A multivariate regression was performed to explore the association between variables and both the likelihood of publication and the journal's impact factor. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the time course of publication of abstracts.

RESULTS

Of the 939 analyzed abstracts, 360 (38.3%) were published in journals with a median impact factor of 3.4. The median time interval between abstract submission and article publication was 22 months. The multivariate analysis revealed that abstracts were more likely to be published if they were funded (OR=1.482, p=0.005), had a control group (OR=1.511, p=0.016), and had a basic science research scope (OR=1.388, p=0.020). The journal's impact factor was higher in funded studies (β=0.163, p=0.002) but lower in multicenter studies (β=-0.170, p=0.001). The Kaplan-Meier analyses revealed significant differences in the publication time distribution for basic science vs clinical abstracts (χ2=7.636), controlled vs uncontrolled studies (χ2=6.921), and funded vs unfunded research (χ2=13.892) (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Almost 40% of Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology abstracts were published within 5 years from submission. Funding support, basic research scope, and controlled design were the determinants of better outcomes of publication.