MP66-08 PUBLISHING ETHICS AT MAJOR UROLOGY CONFERENCES: A 14-YEAR ANALYSIS OF ABSTRACT PRESENTATIONS FROM AN AUA SECTIONAL MEETING
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023MP66-08 PUBLISHING ETHICS AT MAJOR UROLOGY CONFERENCES: A 14-YEAR ANALYSIS OF ABSTRACT PRESENTATIONS FROM AN AUA SECTIONAL MEETING Suraj Pursnani, Jacob Feiertag, Zachary Corey, Ahmad Alzubaidi, Erik B. Lehman, and Jay D. Raman Suraj PursnaniSuraj Pursnani More articles by this author , Jacob FeiertagJacob Feiertag More articles by this author , Zachary CoreyZachary Corey More articles by this author , Ahmad AlzubaidiAhmad Alzubaidi More articles by this author , Erik B. LehmanErik B. Lehman More articles by this author , and Jay D. RamanJay D. Raman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003329.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Academic conferences are excellent opportunities to showcase innovative research. However, the same abstract may be submitted to multiple conferences or contain previously published material. This violates exclusive submission criteria of most medical meetings. Duplicate publications account for over 15% of scholarly article retractionswith that number increasing in recent years. This study aimed to investigate the publication ethics of abstracts presented at a sectional American Urological Association (AUA) conference. METHODS: Mid-Atlantic AUA (MA-AUA) abstract submissions from 2008 to 2021 were collected from the Canadian Journal of Urology website. Abstract titles and authors were searched in a standard fashion using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google. Characteristic data was collected, including manuscript publication date and journal of publication. RESULTS: Over the study interval, 1372 abstracts were presented. Of these, 466 (34.0%) were published as manuscripts while 906 (66.0%) did not get published. Of the published manuscripts, 59 (12.7%) were published prior to the conference date. The mean time of publication prior to the conference was 5±4.8 months (range, 1–31 months; Figure 1). Of the 906 presented abstracts that were not published as manuscripts, 102 (11.3%) were submitted as abstracts to other academic meetings either before or after the MA-AUA conference. Categories with the most manuscripts published prior to the meeting included prostate cancer, kidney cancer, and general trends and socioeconomics. CONCLUSIONS: Most research presented at an AUA sectional meeting over the past 14 years was novel and abided by standard publication practices. However, double abstract submissions (11%) and previously published manuscript data (13%) remain an issue within urologic academia. Peer reviewers for academic conferences cannot be expected to know if an abstract had already been published or presented. Submitting authors should abide by ethical submission practices. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e934 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Suraj Pursnani More articles by this author Jacob Feiertag More articles by this author Zachary Corey More articles by this author Ahmad Alzubaidi More articles by this author Erik B. Lehman More articles by this author Jay D. Raman More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,029 | 0,143 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,020 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».