Search

Identifying factors that associate with more cited or higher quality research may be useful to improve science or to support research evaluation. This article reviews evidence for the existence of such factors in article text and metadata. It also reviews studies attempting to estimate article quality or predict long‐term citation counts using statistical regression or machine learning for journal articles or conference papers. Although the primary focus is on document‐level evidence, the related task of estimating the average quality scores of entire departments from bibliometric information is also considered. The review lists a huge range of factors that associate with higher quality or more cited research in some contexts (fields, years, journals) but the strength and direction of association often depends on the set of papers examined, with little systematic pattern and rarely any cause‐and‐effect evidence. The strongest patterns found include the near universal usefulness of journal citation rates, author numbers, reference properties, and international collaboration in predicting (or associating with) higher citation counts, and the greater usefulness of citation‐related information for predicting article quality in the medical, health and physical sciences than in engineering, social sciences, arts, and humanities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Every year the scientific sessions of Annual National Conference of Indian Psychiatric Society (ANCIPS) are marked by presentation of free papers, posters, and award paper sessions, which are usually meant for presentation of new research which is not yet published. Hence, it is expected that these papers will be published in near future so that the scientific literature is distributed and shared with wider audience. Aim: This paper aims to evaluate the abstract to publication rate of papers presented during ANCIPS in the years 2012–2014. Materials and Methods: For this study, all the free papers, posters, and award papers presented during the ANCIPS of 2012–2014 were listed, and electronic searches were carried out to search for published articles. In addition, one of the authors of papers not found in the electronic searches were contacted through E-mail. Results: A total of 1081 papers were presented during the ANCIPS in the 3 year period under study. Of these, 64 were award papers, 622 were free papers, and 395 were posters. Majority (n = 807; 74.6%) of these could be categorized as research data-based presentations; this was followed by case reports/series (203; 18.8%), review of literature (n = 35; 3.3%), and others (n = 36; 3.3%). Overall, only 27% of the papers were published after at least 5 years of the presentation. Of all the award papers, 69.6% of papers were published, whereas only 26.8% of free oral papers and 22.5% of free posters were published. About half (45.6%) of the papers were published in national journals. In terms of indexing, among those which were published, 62.8% were published in Medline-indexed (PubMed-listed) Journals with a mean impact factor of 1. Conclusion: The present study shows that only 27% of the abstracts presented during the ANCIPS are ultimately published as full text articles in the next 5 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the factors influencing the future citations of conference papers. We concentrated on the explanatory power of early attention on conference papers for citations collected from Google Scholar and Scopus. The early attention data includes users' online activities in a conference support system: CN3. Bookmarks from the bibliographic management system, Citeulike, were used as a collateral source of early attention. To examine the chronological contributions of 13 factors on citations, a multiple sequential regression analysis was conducted for three timepoints of the publication cycle—paper submission, time of conferences, and months after conferences. Our results illustrate that online readers' early attention of Citeulike bookmarks were found to have the most influence on the future impact of the conference papers. The early attention records from CN3 made noteworthy improvements to explaining both the Google and Scopus citations as well. We also found that the type of papers the number of papers presented at a conference, and the best article award records were significant factors influencing future citations. However, the magnitude of the effects made by online readers' early attention from both sources appears to be larger than these three traditional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The ENT Scotland society (formerly known as the Scottish Otolaryngological Society) has two meetings a year and accepts oral presentations from trainees. This study aimed to identify publication rates from these meetings. Methods: Abstracts of the presentations are published in The Journal of Laryngology and Otology. A structured search on PubMed and Google Scholar was undertaken to identify which presentations from the 2005 to 2014 meetings have been published. Results: Of the 145 abstracts found, 60.7 per cent were presenting clinical research and 44.1 per cent were related to the head and neck subspecialty. Seventy-three abstracts (50.3 per cent) were associated with publication as a peer-reviewed article; otology papers were more likely to be published than those focusing on other subspecialties (64.3 per cent, p = 0.036). No correlation was found between publication and other factors. Conclusion: Presentations at the ENT Scotland meetings undergo unbiased peer review and are as likely to be published as those of other conferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on examining the research impact of papers written with and without funding. Specifically, the citation analysis method is used to compare the general and funded papers published in two leading international conferences, which are ACM SIGIR and ACM SIGKDD. Design/methodology/approach – The authors investigate the number of general and funded papers to see whether the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. In addition, the total citations and the number of highly cited papers with and without funding are also compared. Findings – The analysis results of ACM SIGIR papers show that in most cases the number of funded papers is larger than the number of general papers. Moreover, the total captions, the average number of citations per paper, and the number of highly cited papers all reveal the superiority of funded papers over general papers. However, the findings are somewhat different for the ACM SIGKDD papers. This may be because ACM SIGIR began much earlier than ACM SIGKDD, which relates to the maturity of the research problems addressed in these two conferences. Originality/value – The value of this paper is the first attempt at examining the research impact of general and funded research papers by the citation analysis method. The research impact of other research areas can be further investigated by other analysis methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conference proceedings are one of the most important forms of communication for computer scientists. This study investigated the policies of a large number of computer science journals with regard to the republication of papers which had already appeared in conference proceedings. Nearly one-quarter of journal editors would not republish such papers other than in special circumstances (such as a special conference issue), and almost all of the remainder would do so only after substantial updating and expansion of the original paper. Many specified the amount of content that should be new: 30% was the proportion most frequently mentioned. Thus, many sections of text may be identical to the original paper. However, some journal editors do not appear to consider this self-plagiarism provided the original publication is properly cited. Nevertheless, such (re)publication is likely to lead to high similarity scores in CrossCheck; in this field, therefore, journal editors need to exercise particular discretion when evaluating CrossCheck results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstracts of scientific papers are sometimes poorly written, often lack important information, and occasionally convey a biased picture. This paper provides detailed suggestions, with examples, for writing the background, methods, results, and conclusions sections of a good abstract. The primary target of this paper is the young researcher; however, authors with all levels of experience may find useful ideas in the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this note we want to show that the PCR6 fusion rule works and redistributes the conflicting mass properly, contrarily to the authors' assertion that "he focal element {v3} absorbs almost all of the conflicting mass (the majority)."We also question the validity of the new CREC rule of combination presented by the authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The European Society of Sports Traumatology, Knee Surgery and Arthroscopy (ESSKA) congress is an important venue, and the research presented can be a critical source of information used to impact clinical decisions and health policies. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress from 2008 to 2016. Moreover, this study evaluated whether there were any changes in the distribution of level of evidence over time.Methods: Two reviewers screened the free papers presented at the ESSKA biannual congresses 2008-2016 for clinical evidence. Clinical papers included observational studies and trials involving direct interaction between an investigator and human subjects. Biomechanical studies, technique demonstrations, cadaveric studies, and panel discussions were excluded. The reviewers independently graded their level of evidence from level I (e.g. high-quality randomized trials) to level IV (e.g. case series and reports) using the classification system published by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.Results: Of 1036 free papers that were identified, 729 met the inclusion criteria and were evaluated. Overall, 18% of studies were level I, 24% level II, 25% level III, and 33% level IV evidence. There was a significant improvement in level of evidence over time (p < 0.0001), with the proportion of level I studies increasing most dramatically (9% in 2008, 20% in 2012, 24% in 2016). Free papers studying the knee had higher levels of evidence than those evaluating other joints (p = 0.002).Conclusion: The level of evidence of clinical free papers presented at the ESSKA congress between 2008 and 2016 is high relative to other orthopaedic meetings. Moreover, there has been a significant improvement in the level of evidence over time.Level Of Evidence: Systematic review, Level IV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors present guidelines for nursing professionals in converting their conference presentation into a manuscript for submission to the journal. Considerations as outlined by the Medical Librarians association are its purpose, content and organization, style and conversion of the presentation. The authors also advises about the possible outcomes of a submission like the difficulty of a paper to get accepted and the need to respond to suggestions and comments by editors and reviewers.

To determine the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the ECR 2000 were published between 2000-2004, and to identify predictive factors of publication and differences between abstracts and subsequently published papers. Specific search profiles were devised to retrieve items from the Medline database. From 1020 abstracts originating from 39 countries, 479 articles (publication rate 47%) were subsequently published in 139 Medline-indexed journals, most frequently in European Radiology (14%). Country of origin statistically (P<0.0001) influences the subsequent publication of the abstract, Germany having the highest number of presentations (n=343) and derived articles (publication rate 54%). Abstracts presented by authors from the USA (n=21) had the highest publication rate (76%). Most papers were published within the first 3 years after the meeting, as original articles and in English-language journals. Both the study sample size and the first author frequently changed. Chest and cardiac studies had the highest publication rates (56%, both). In summary, abstracts presented at the ECR 2000 had a high publication rate in Medline-indexed journals. Country of origin and subspecialty of presentation appeared to influence subsequent full publication. More articles were published in European Radiology than in other journal. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article is a report on the XXIII International Congress of the AILC-ICLA, a hybrid event dedicated to researching various aspects of world literature that was held in Tbilisi in July 2022. It evaluates the keynote papers presented by Irma Ratiani (Georgia), Marko Juvan (Slovenia), Toshiko Ellis (Japan) and Jennifer Wallace (UK). The main lecture on Central and East European literatures, Juvan's keynote "How to Think World Literature from its Edge?" examined worldliness as both a global system based on international authorities and prestigious publishing houses and as a capillary worlding that, due to its minority character, popularizes the activities of lesser-known writers. The Congress's viewpoint not from the perspective of the Anglophone "centers", but from its margins, enabled the reflection of a number of other subtopics such as the issue of so-called minor literature, gender, postcolonialism, digital culture, intermediality, interculturality, etc. The general conclusions reached at the Congress can be formulated as follows: 1. the reinterpretation of comparative literature from institutional and thematic perspectives, 2. the point of view of so-called small literatures, and 3. the revitalization of the term "national literature". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to investigate the rate at which abstracts orally presented at the ESGAR 2000 and 2001 meetings were published between 2000-2004, and to identify predictive factors of publication. The abstracts of ESGAR meeting presentations were reviewed and classified according to organ, modality, type of design, country of origin of the studies and basic categories of diagnostic or interventional. The presentations were searched for publication in Medline-indexed journals using the PubMed server. The publication rates of the presentations, the time period between the presentation and publication, and the journal in which the article had appeared were investigated. An overall number of 109 publications were found originating from 276 presentations (39.5%). The median and inter-quartile range [IQR] between the abstract presentation and subsequently full publication was 18 months [1.0 -53.0]. The journal with the highest number of derived articles from abstract presentation was European Radiology (n=21, 19.2%). Retrospective studies were found to be more frequently published than prospective studies (p=0.001). The publication rate did not show any statistically significant difference between groups of other classifications. The publication rate of studies orally presented at ESGAR meetings was 39.5%. No specific variable other than the type of design of the studies appeared to influence the publication rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the last decade, Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) have evolved enormously as interrelated research areas and disciplines. Many researchers interested in these areas may wonder why there are two different communities, whether they are the same concept or not, and the differences between them, which is key information for designing their research and publication strategies. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of academic papers about the differences between LA and EDM following the Preferred Reporting Method for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) guidelines. We selected 10 research works and identified 11 differences. Our conclusions are that, although both use the same data and share similar goals and interests, EDM and LA are different research communities with different origins and focuses, with their respective conferences and journals. However, there is active collaboration between the two communities and their members often tend to publish in both fields' conferences and journals. Additionally, none of the differences are apparently large enough to conclude that LA and EDM follow different paths for improving the teaching-learning process, but rather the opposite. Following a common future line, it seems that the two "sister" communities are working together with the same perspective, along with some "cousin" communities such as AIED (Artificial Intelligence in Education), L@S (Learning at Scale), Learning Science (LS), etc. in the same area that could be called Educational Data Science (EDS). We propose using the term EDS to integrate both LA and EDM with all these related communities. [Display omitted] • Educational Data Mining (EDM) and Learning Analytics (LA) are interrelated and sometimes interchanged terms. • Five original differences between EDM and LA have been identified. • Other six new differences have emerged since these initial five differences. • The term Educational Data Science (EDS) is proposed to integrate EDM and LA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Congresses are important for physicians to access up-to-date information. The papers presented in congresses provide access to current research topics in the field in a short time. In this study, we aimed to investigate the contribution of oral presentations (OP) that were presented at the Turkish National Neurology Congress (TNNC) organized by the Turkish Neurological Society to the literature. Materials and Methods: OP presented in TNNCs between 2000-2017 were reviewed. The distribution of papers in terms of the main headings and their institutions were determined. Then, the names and presentation titles of the researchers were searched in PubMed and Google Scholar databases in Turkish and English and their publication rates were determined. Results: In 17 years, a total of 1682 oral and 8065 poster presentations were accepted. Fourteen OPs were withdrawn. Of the OPs, 318 were in the field of demyelinating diseases (DMD), 305 on cerebrovascular diseases (CVD), 205 on epilepsy, 202 on neuromuscular diseases (NMD), 199 on headache, 183 on movement disorders, 112 on behavioral neurology, 20 on sleep disorders, 13 on pediatric neurology, and 119 on other diseases. Of the studies, 1253 were clinical studies, 226 were case reports, 130 were basic science studies, 84 were questionnaire studies, 70 were genetic studies, and 852 were prospective studies. One thousand two hundred eighty-six were from university hospitals and 338 from training and research hospitals. Six hundred six were published as articles. One hundred seventy-one were published in Turkish journals and 416 were published in SCI-E journals. Of the publications, 481 were presentations from university hospitals. Comparing the 2000-2009 and 2010-2017 presentations, presentations of NMD and sleep disorders increased, and the highest number of presentations were in the CVD and DMD groups in both periods. Presentations of headache and epilepsy were mostly published in journals. Conclusion: To our knowledge, our study is the first to analyze neurology congress presentations in Turkey. It is noted that such analyses are performed in the literature mostly for 1-5 years, and our results are similar to those of other disciplinary studies conducted in our country and lower than those of international meetings. Incentive methods should be developed to increase the number of publications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The rapid growth in the number of conferences and papers appearing in conference proceedings publications has increased the need to examine the issue of conference paper quality. Since conference content is included in permanent repositories, such as IEEE's Xplore, the existence of low-quality papers in a conference will degrade the value and reputation of the conference and the repository. The aim of this contribution is to consider these issues from the point of view of the Conference Publications Operations Committee of the IEEE Computer Society, and offer ideas that could lead to improved conference publishing quality for all IEEE societies and even non-IEEE entities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The objective of this paper is to outline the updated methodological approach for conducting a JBI mixed methods systematic review with a focus on data synthesis, specifically, methods related to how data are combined and the overall integration of the quantitative and qualitative evidence. Introduction: Mixed methods systematic reviews provide a more complete basis for complex decision-making than that currently offered by single method reviews, thereby maximizing their usefulness to clinical and policy decision-makers. Although mixed methods systematic reviews are gaining traction, guidance regarding the methodology of combining quantitative and qualitative data is limited. In 2014, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group developed guidance formixedmethods systematic reviews; however, since the introduction of this guidance, there have been significant developments in mixed methods synthesis. As such, the methodology group recognized the need to revise the guidance to align it with the current state of knowledge on evidence synthesis methodology. Methods: Between 2015 and 2019, the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group undertook an extensive review of the literature, held annual face-to-face meetings (which were supplemented by teleconferences and regular email correspondence), sought advice from experts in the field, and presented at scientific conferences. This process led to the development of guidance in the form of a chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis, the official guidance for conducting JBI systematic reviews. In 2019, the guidance was ratified by the JBI International Scientific Committee. Results: The updated JBI methodological guidance for conducting a mixed methods systematic review recommends that reviewers take a convergent approach to synthesis and integration whereby the specific method utilized is dependent on the nature/type of questions that are posed in the systematic review. The JBI guidance is primarily based on Hong et al. and Sandelowski's typology on mixed methods systematic reviews. If the review question can be addressed by both quantitative and qualitative research designs, the convergent integrated approach should be followed, which involves data transformation and allows reviewers to combine quantitative and qualitative data. If the focus of the review is on different aspects or dimensions of a particular phenomenon of interest, the convergent segregated approach is undertaken, which involves independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data leading to the generation of quantitative and qualitative evidence, which are then integrated together. Conclusions: The updated guidance on JBI mixed methods systematic reviews provides foundational work to a rapidly evolving methodology and aligns with other seminal work undertaken in the field of mixed methods synthesis. Limitations to the current guidance are acknowledged, and a series of methodological projects identified by the JBI Mixed Methods Review Methodology Group to further refine the methodology are proposed. Mixed methods reviews offer an innovative framework for generating unique insights related to the complexities associated with health care quality and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on predatory journals emerging for taking money from all the academics desperate having COVID-19 related papers published. Topics include showing continuum of thinking, knowledge, and continued intellectual development; and undergraduate earning the own PhD and having the skills and resources for leading the own international research group.

Background: Scientific results as presented at conferences need to be published in journals so that the scientific community can become aware of the results. The aim of our study was to analyze the peer-review publication rate of abstracts presented at two German Cancer Congresses, based on various factors. Methods: We investigated 1,086 abstracts published by the German Cancer Congress in 2000 and 2010 in relation to the publication in peer-reviewed journals (PubMed publication) within the subsequent 6 years. Furthermore, we studied potential determinants of PubMed publications. For statistical analysis we used Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression (hazard ratios, HR, and 95% confidence intervals). Results: Overall 456 abstracts (42%) were published as PubMed publications, 86 (8%) before the congresses and 370 (34%) after the congresses. The median time to PubMed publication was 16.2 months among 370 post-published abstracts. Abstracts presented as oral presentations had a shorter time to PubMed publication than abstracts presented as posters (14.2 months vs. 16.8 months respectively). In comparison to cell experiments, randomized controlled trials and animal experiments had a higher PubMed publication rate (HR=2.2, 95%CI 1.4--3.4 and HR=2.6, 95%CI 1.6--4.4 respectively). In comparison to abstracts including work in progress, abstracts that included finalized study results had a higher publication rate (HR=1.6, 95%CI 1.2--2.3). Discussion: Our study is the largest study of oncology congresses examining the publication rates and associated determinants. The publication rate was similar to other congresses. There is a considerable potential of publication bias as 58% of congress abstracts were not followed by a peer-reviewed full paper publication within 6 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To determine factors and barriers associated with scholarly activity among faculty members at urology residency programs in the United States.Methods: An online survey was sent to all 134 urology residency program directors. The survey assessed program characteristics including size, location and definition of scholarly activity. It assessed available support for and barriers to resident scholarly activity, faculty participation in scholarly activity and mentorship of residents. Linear regression analysis was used.Results: We had a 40% response rate (N = 40). Faculty attitudes toward conducting scholarly activity (P < .001) and lack of a research curriculum (P = .05) were barriers to the outcome 'participation in scholarly activity'. Faculty attitudes toward conducting scholarly activity was also a barrier to the outcomes 'mentorship of residents' (P = .004) and 'publication of at least 1 paper' (P = .004). Available statistician was positively associated with the outcomes 'publications' (P = .062) and 'presentations' (P = .032). A minimum requirement of a local presentation (P=0.04) and chairman support (P = .015) were positively associated with the outcome 'presentation at a conference.'Conclusion: Training residents in research matters for the resident, the institution and future generations of surgeon scientists. Higher levels of faculty scholarly activity were associated with a minimum requirement for residents to submit a manuscript for publication, strong chairman support for resident research, and the availability of a statistician. A common barrier to faculty scholarly activity, publications, and resident mentorship was faculty attitudes toward resident scholarly activity. Urology residency programs seeking to prioritize scholarly activity among faculty should consider these factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During May 12–14, 2018, the International Conference for the Decade Memory of the Wenchuan Earthquake, in connection to the 4th International Conference on Continental Earthquakes (4th ICCE) and the 12th General Assembly of the Asian Seismological Commission (ASC), was held in Chengdu, China. There have been several outcomes of the Conference (for example, the book published jointly by Higher Education Press and Springer) as well as the present special issue. Among the 58 submissions, 34 have been accepted after peer review. Some of the papers came from the presentations during the Conference, but with additional submissions, the scope of this special issue is far beyond that of the proceedings of the meeting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aims of this paper were to explicate clinical scholarship as synonymous with the scholarship of application and to explore the evolution of scholarly practice to clinical scholarship. Background Boyer contributed an expanded view of scholarship that recognized various approaches to knowledge production beyond pure research (discovery) to include the scholarship of integration, application and teaching. There is growing interest in using Boyer's framework to advance knowledge production in nursing but the discussion of clinical scholarship in relation to Boyer's framework is sparse. Design Discussion paper. Data sources Literature from 1983-2015 and Boyer's framework. Implications for nursing When clinical scholarship is viewed as a synonym for Boyer's scholarship of application, it can be aligned to this well established framework to support knowledge generated in clinical practice. For instance, applying the three criteria for scholarship (documentation, peer review and dissemination) can ensure that the knowledge produced is rigorous, available for critique and used by others to advance nursing practice and patient care. Understanding the differences between scholarly practice and clinical scholarship can promote the development of clinical scholarship. Supporting clinical leaders to identify issues confronting nursing practice can enable scholarly practice to be transformed into clinical scholarship. Conclusion Expanding the understanding of clinical scholarship and linking it to Boyer's scholarship of application can assist nurses to generate knowledge that addresses clinical concerns. Further dialogue about how clinical scholarship can address the theory-practice gap and how publication of clinical scholarship could be expanded given the goals of clinical scholarship is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The question of which type of computer science (CS) publication-0conference or journal-0is likely to result in more citations for a published paper is addressed. A series of data sets are examined and joined in order to analyze the citations of over 195,000 conference papers and 108,000 journal papers. Two means of evaluating the citations of journals and conferences are explored: h5 and average citations per paper; it was found that h5 has certain biases that make it a difficult measure to use (despite it being the main measure used by Google Scholar). Results from the analysis show that CS, as a discipline, values conferences as a publication venue more highly than any other academic field of study. The analysis also shows that a small number of elite CS conferences have the highest average paper citation rate of any publication type, although overall, citation rates in conferences are no higher than in journals. It is also shown that the length of a paper is correlated with citation rate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on proposals for the submission of papers to the 50th anniversary conference of "The Journal of Analytical Psychology". Theme; Opportunity to highlight the development of clinical practice in analytical psychology; Deadline for submission.

This study presents a scientometric analysis of 253 articles published in Sadhana during the year 2005-2009. Five volumes of the journal are taken up to observe the distribution of contribution, authorship pattern, institution-wise distribution, geographical distribution of contribution, average length of paper, tables and illustrations used and citation pattern in each volume. Results indicate that highest number of papers have been written by two authors. The contributions received in this journal are more from India than from the other countries. Foreign documents show their more representation in references cited. Journals are referred more frequently than other documents.The average number of references per article is 23.72 and 200.602 per volume. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study analyzes the volume of Brazilian scientific production in Marketing published in the period 2000-2009 in BAR, RAC, RAE, RAM, RAUSP and Read periodicals and in the proceedings of EnANPAD and the (EMA). When the results were compared with those obtained by Vieira (2003) in the past decade, there was found to be an increase of 368% in the number of published papers. The number of articles published in the proceedings (81.1%) is still much higher than the number of articles published in periodicals (18.9%). Approximately 65% of the authors published only one paper in the conferences. Consumer Behavior is still the most common subject (29%). The average number of authors per paper increased from 1.7 to 2.3 and the concentration of articles produced by the top five most productive schools declined from 62.5% to 49.6%. The average number of citations per article increased from 21.6 to 37.4 but the average number of citations of Brazilian periodicals only increased from 2.0 to 2.5. The study concludes by forecasting the evolution of scientific production in the area of Marketing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To determine a direct measure of publication bias by determining subsequent full-paper publication (P) of studies reported in animal research abstracts presented at an international conference (A). Methods: We selected 100 random (using a random-number generator) A from the 2008 Society of Critical Care Medicine Conference. Using a data collection form and study manual, we recorded methodology and result variables from A. We searched PubMed and EMBASE to June 2015, and DOAJ and Google Scholar to May 2017 to screen for subsequent P. Methodology and result variables were recorded from P to determine changes in reporting from A. Predictors of P were examined using Fisher's Exact Test. Results: 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of studies described in A were subsequently P after a median 19 [IQR 9-33.3] months from conference presentation. Reporting of studies in A was of low quality: randomized 27% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), blinded 0%, sample-size calculation stated 0%, specifying the primary outcome 26%, numbers given with denominators 6%, and stating number of animals used 47%. Only being an orally presented (vs. poster presented) A (14/16 vs. 48/84, p = 0.025) predicted P. Reporting of studies in P was of poor quality: randomized 39% (the method of randomization and allocation concealment not described), likely blinded 6%, primary outcome specified 5%, sample size calculation stated 0%, numbers given with denominators 34%, and number of animals used stated 56%. Changes in reporting from A to P occurred: from non-randomized to randomized 19%, from non-blinded to blinded 6%, from negative to positive outcomes 8%, from having to not having a stated primary outcome 16%, and from non-statistically to statistically significant findings 37%. Post-hoc, using publication data, P was predicted by having positive outcomes (published 62/62, unpublished 33/38; p = 0.003), or statistically significant results (published 58/62, unpublished 20/38; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Only 62% (95% CI 52-71%) of animal research A are subsequently P; this was predicted by oral presentation of the A, finally having positive outcomes, and finally having statistically significant results. Publication bias is prevalent in critical care animal research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]