• Roberta W Scherer, Cesar Ugarte-Gil, Christine Schmucker, and Joerg J Meerpohl.
• Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Department of Epidemiology, 615 N. Wolfe St., Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Electronic address: rschere1@jhu.edu.
• J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul 1; 68 (7): 803-10.

ObjectivesTo systematically review reports that queried abstract authors about reasons for not subsequently publishing abstract results as full-length articles.Study Design And SettingSystematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, and study bibliographies for empirical studies in which investigators examined subsequent full publication of results presented at a biomedical conference and reasons for nonpublication.ResultsThe mean full publication rate was 55.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 54.8%, 56.9%] for 24 of 27 eligible reports providing this information and 73.0% (95% CI: 71.2%, 74.7%) for seven reports of abstracts describing clinical trials. Twenty-four studies itemized 1,831 reasons for nonpublication, and six itemized 428 reasons considered the most important reason. "Lack of time" was the most frequently reported reason [weighted average = 30.2% (95% CI: 27.9%, 32.4%)] and the most important reason [weighted average = 38.4% (95% CI: 33.7%, 43.2%)]. Other commonly stated reasons were "lack of time and/or resources," "publication not an aim," "low priority," "incomplete study," and "trouble with co-authors."ConclusionsAcross medical specialties, the main reasons for not subsequently publishing an abstract in full lie with factors related to the abstract author rather than with journals.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

11 keywords...

hide…