Purpose: To examine variables that affect publication of ACVO meeting abstracts in peer-reviewed journals and compare results to ECVO publication rate (PR). Methods: Published papers were identified via online searches for abstracts from 2008 to 2012 ACVO/ECVO meetings. Variables analyzed (via Pearson's chi-Squared test) included the following: oral presentation/poster, type of abstract (clinical/basic science/case report), species, ocular tissue, nationality, funding, first/last/any author a diplomate, resident as first author, and author affiliation (private practice/university). Results: One hundred and eighty-six of 577 ACVO abstracts were published within 608 ± 479 days, with 103 published in Veterinary Ophthalmology. Significant factors included the following: nationality of first/last authors (P =.005); English as first language (P <.001); presentation type (P <.001, oral 40% PR, poster 22% PR); type of study (P =.037, clinical study 35% PR, basic science 30% PR, case report 16% PR); resident as first author (P <.001); diplomate as any author except first/last (P <.001); first author affiliation (P =.001, university 37% PR, practice 21% PR); last author affiliation (P =.003, university 36% PR, practice 22% PR); and species (P <.001, horses 53% PR, multiple species 50% PR, cats 35% PR, food animals 31% PR, exotics/wildlife 31% PR, dogs 27% PR, laboratory animals/in vitro 24%). Nonsignificant factors were as follows: diplomate as first/last author, funding, and ocular tissue. Presentation type, resident as first author, university affiliation of first author, and species had the greatest effect on publication probability. For the same period, ECVO PR was 87 of 299, which was not significantly different from ACVO PR (P =.342). Conclusion: At 32%, ACVO PR for the study years is similar to ECVO PR of 29%.
Bibliographical noteFunding Information:
research project,9 and one that is more likely to be completed, given that funds are available to do the work. Accordingly, it would seem that abstracts resulting from funded research should be more likely to be successfully published. In the ECVO, residents are often the recipients of funding and are required to publish prior to taking the ECVO board examination, which may have led to this result. In the ACVO, while residents often receive funding for projects, there is no publication requirement, which may explain this difference. However, in both groups, having a resident as the first author significantly increased the chance of subsequent publication. The Vision for Animals Foundation (VAF) Resident grants may be able to address this discrepancy by making future funding to institutions dependent on publication of previously VAF funded projects. Funding has previously been associated with publication for other medical meetings, including the ACVA;7 however, funding did not affect the likelihood of publication of ACVS abstracts.5
© 2018 American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists
- American College of Veterinary Ophthalmologists
- oral paper
- publication rate
- scientific meeting