Are We Publishing What We Present in Plastic Surgery? The Conversion Rates of Presentations to Publications in North American Plastic Surgery Meetings

Scientific conferences allow for the dissemination of novel findings to wide audiences, but among the information presented, only the highest-quality submissions are eventually published in reputable, peer-reviewed journals. There historically have been low conversion rates of presentations from plastic surgery meetings to publications.1 We evaluated the conversion rates and time frame between presentation and publication for all abstracts presented at meetings of the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery, American Association of Plastic Surgeons, and American Society of Plastic Surgery between 2012 and 2016. We also investigated potential correlations between conversion rates and research study design, subspecialty, publication journal, and journal impact factor. All oral abstracts were cross-referenced on MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and PubMed databases to assess for publication. Only 461 (35.6%) of the 1371 abstracts were published in peer-reviewed journals (Table 1). Across a 9-year span, there was a 9.4% decline in conversion rates at the three North American plastic surgery meetings. The conversion rates were as follows: Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery, 60.2%; American Association of Plastic Surgeons, 49.8%; and American Society of Plastic Surgery, 26.8%. The Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery exhibited increasing conversion rates across 2012 and 2016; the American Association of Plastic Surgeons and American Society of Plastic Surgery had declining conversion rates. This may be attributable to a lower number of plastic surgeons in Canada relative to the United States2 or changes in the Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery meeting structure.3 Journal impact factor did not affect the likelihood of publication, which was expected, because journal impact factor may be better suited to measure journal prestige than publication difficulty.4 The Kaplan-Meier curve illustrates the likely time required after a presentation for successful publication (Fig. 1). The mean time for presentations to be published was 16.7 months (median, 11.0 months; minimum, 0.3 months; maximum, 31.5 months). Table 1. - Analyzed Data from Three Annual Plastic Surgery Conferences Held in North America (2012 through 2016) Variable CSPS AAPS ASPS Total Presented abstracts, n (%) 93 (6.78) 271 (19.77) 1007 (73.45) 1371 (100.00) Publications, n (% of conversion) 56 (60.22) 135 (49.82) 270 (26.81) 461 (35.60) Mean (range) publication time, months 19.58 (2.00–66.00) 15.15 (0.43–71.00) 15.22 (0.50–63.00) 16.65 (0.43–71.00) Mean (range) journal impact factor 1.71 (0.51–3.46) 2.19 (0.65–8.54) 2.53 (0.31–31.52) 2.14 (0.31–31.52) Subspecialty, n (%) Craniofacial 5 (5.34) 62 (22.87) 182 (18.07) 249 (18.16) Reconstruction 31 (33.33) 49 (18.08) 186 (18.47) 266 (19.41) Breast 4 (4.30) 54 (19.93) 151 (15.00) 209 (15.24) Cosmetic 9 (9.68) 27 (9.96) 139 (13.80) 175 (12.76) Hand or peripheral nerve 28 (30.10) 10 (3.69) 98 (9.73) 136 (9.92) Experimental 16 (17.20) 69 (25.46) 251 (24.93) 336 (24.51) Trial type, n (%) Clinical trial 25 (26.88) 23 (8.49) 164 (16.29) 212 (15.46) Basic science 8 (8.60) 57 (21.03) 105 (10.43) 170 (12.40) Cohort 19 (20.43) 45 (16.61) 198 (19.66) 262 (19.11) Case–control 0 (0) 1 (0.37) 22 (2.18) 23 (1.68) Cross-sectional 0 (0) 8 (1.85) 22 (1.28) 30 (2.19) Case series 2 (2.15) 5 (1.85) 37 (0.37) 44 (3.21) Case report 2 (2.15) 3 (0.74) 7 (0.70) 12 (0.88) Review (systemic or meta-analysis) 33 (35.48) 114 (42.07) 401 (39.82) 548 (39.90) Questionnaire or survey 4 (4.30) 15 (5.54) 51 (5.06) 70 (5.11) Journal of publication, n (%) Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 15 (16.13) 66 (24.35) 634 (62.96) 715 (52.15) Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open 8 (8.60) 109 (40.22) 209 (20.75) 326 (23.78) Annals of Plastic Surgery 2 (2.15) 12 (4.43) 35 (3.48) 49 (3.57) Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery 2 (2.15) 3 (1.11) 21 (2.09) 26 (1.90) Journal of Craniofacial Surgery 0 (0) 5 (1.85) 12 (1.19) 17 (1.24) Aesthetic Surgery Journal 1 (1.08) 2 (0.74) 12 (1.19) 15 (1.09) Plastic Surgery 8 (8.60) 0 (0) 5 (0.50) 13 (0.95) Journal of Hand Surgery 8 (8.60) 1 (0.37) 2 (0.20) 11 (0.80) Aesthetic Plastic Surgery 0 (0) 5 (1.85) 4 (0.40) 9 (0.66) Hand 3 (3.23) 0 (0) 5 (0.50) 8 (0.58) Microsurgery 1 (1.08) 0 (0) 7 (0.70) 8 (0.58) Annals of Surgical Oncology 0 (0) 4 (1.48) 2 (0.20) 6 (0.44) Journal of Surgical Oncology 1 (1.08) 0 (0) 4 (0.40) 5 (0.36) Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery 1 (1.08) 0 (0) 4 (0.40) 5 (0.36) Journal of Plastic and Hand Surgery 0 (0) 2 (0.74) 3 (0.30) 5 (0.36) Other 9 (9.68) 21 (7.75) 48 (4.77) 78 (5.69) AAPS, American Association of Plastic Surgeons; ASPS, American Society of Plastic Surgeons; CSPS, Canadian Society of Plastic Surgeons. Fig. 1.: Kaplan-Meier curve indicating conversion time from presentation to publication for Canadian Society of Plastic Surgery (CSPS), American Association of Plastic Surgeons (AAPS), and American Society of Plastic Surgery (ASPS) meetings between 2012 and 2016.Despite considerable progress in research methods with the introduction of open-access journals, electronic submission portals, and preprint servers, the alarming decline in conversion rates suggests that information presented at conferences is being abandoned from publication, likely attributable to complex multifactorial reasons. These causes may include publication biases,5 authors’ fear of rejection, perceived unimportant results, or lack of time, funding, or mentors. Regardless of the reasons, it is important to assess progress so that support systems may be set up at individual or institutional levels. Institutions with high acclaim for their research quality tend to attract researchers partly because of their higher allocation of funding and better resources to promote and support a scholar’s work. As a result, smaller institutions with lower acclaim may try to copy the same methods with inadequate resources to improve publication rates. Increasing departmental focus on rewarding outstanding scholars and prioritizing mentorship and collaboration can help bring out the best among the faculty. Institutions should explore means of supporting researchers in the publication process. Future studies should focus on advocating for an increase in research quality by analyzing the rate of publications among larger departments. An important area of research is the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication and how funding and mentoring affect research publications. ACKNOWLEDGMENT Dr. Faisal Khosa is the recipient of the Mitchell Award of Distinction, British Columbia Achievement Foundation (2022), and the Distinguished Achievement Award, University of British Columbia (2022). This research was supported by Disparities Research Institute, Ltd. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. DISCLOSURE The authors have no conflict of interest or financial interest to declare in relation to the content of this article.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.