IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v10y2022i4p36-d932592.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference

Author

Listed:
  • Nicholas Yee Liang Hing

    (Centre for Clinical Epidemiology, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Xin Ci Wong

    (Digital Health Research & Innovation, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Pei Xuan Kuan

    (Digital Health Research & Innovation, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Mohan Dass Pathmanathan

    (Digital Health Research & Innovation, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman

    (Digital Health Research & Innovation, Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

  • Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy

    (Institute for Clinical Research, National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam 40170, Selangor, Malaysia)

Abstract

Background: The publication rates of abstracts after they were presented at the National Conference for Clinical Research (NCCR), a scientific conference held in Malaysia, was determined to gauge the scientific value of the conference, whilst providing comparative information with other scientific conferences. Methods: All the abstracts that were presented at the NCCR from 2014 to 2016 were analysed. Keywords from the abstract title, along with the first, second, and last author’s name, were searched via PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus to determine publication status. Results: A total of 320 abstracts were analysed. Of those, 57 abstracts (17.8%) were published. Almost 70% of published abstracts appeared in open access journals that charge article processing fees. Early publications (≤18 months from the conference date) had higher median journal impact factors compared to later publications. Approximately 42% of the published abstracts had collaborations with the Institute for Clinical Research (ICR) or Clinical Research Centres (CRCs). An increasing number of authors in an abstract and having the first author from a research centre, reduced and increased the odds of publication, respectively. Conclusions: The NCCR publication rate is lower compared to the reported average in other scientific conferences abroad. More encouragement and support to publish should be provided to the presenting authors. Clinicians should also be encouraged to collaborate with research centres such as those from the ICR or CRCs to boost publication likelihoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Nicholas Yee Liang Hing & Xin Ci Wong & Pei Xuan Kuan & Mohan Dass Pathmanathan & Mohd Aizuddin Abdul Rahman & Kalaiarasu M. Peariasamy, 2022. "Scientific Abstract to Full Paper: Publication Rate over a 3-Year Period in a Malaysian Clinical Research Conference," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-13, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:36-:d:932592
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/4/36/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/10/4/36/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Björk, Bo-Christer & Solomon, David, 2013. "The publishing delay in scholarly peer-reviewed journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 914-923.
    2. Waister Silva Martins & Marcos André Gonçalves & Alberto H. F. Laender & Nivio Ziviani, 2010. "Assessing the quality of scientific conferences based on bibliographic citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 83(1), pages 133-155, April.
    3. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    4. Kendall Powell, 2016. "Does it take too long to publish research?," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7589), pages 148-151, February.
    5. Wah Yun Low & Kwan Hoong Ng & M. A. Kabir & Ai Peng Koh & Janaki Sinnasamy, 2014. "Erratum to: Trend and impact of international collaboration in clinical medicine papers published in Malaysia," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 100(2), pages 607-607, August.
    6. Kurubaran Ganasegeran & Alan Swee Hock Ch’ng & Mohd Fadzly Amar Jamil & Irene Looi, 2020. "Clinicians’ Publication Output: Self-Report Survey and Bibliometric Analysis," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-18, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dan Tian & Xin Liu & Jiang Li, 2024. "Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3787-3807, July.
    2. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Katrin Hussinger & Lorenzo Palladini, 2024. "Information accessibility and knowledge creation: the impact of Google’s withdrawal from China on scientific research," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(6), pages 753-783, July.
    4. Josep Maria Argilés-Bosch & Yuliya Kasperskaya & Josep Garcia-Blandon & Diego Ravenda, 2025. "The interplay of author and editor gender in acceptance delays: evidence from accounting journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1939-1965, March.
    5. Püttmann, Vitus & Thomsen, Stephan L. & Trunzer, Johannes, 2020. "Zur Relevanz von Ausstattungsunterschieden für Forschungsleistungsvergleiche: Ein Diskussionsbeitrag für die Wirtschaftswissenschaften in Deutschland," Hannover Economic Papers (HEP) dp-679, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, revised Mar 2021.
    6. Lucas Rodriguez Forti & Luiz A. Solino & Judit K. Szabo, 2021. "Trade-off between urgency and reduced editorial capacity affect publication speed in ecological and medical journals during 2020," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    7. Lokman Tutuncu, 2023. "All-pervading insider bias alters review time in Turkish university journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3743-3791, June.
    8. Lorenzo Manganaro, 2024. "The true latency of biomedical research papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(5), pages 2897-2910, May.
    9. Peng, Wen & Yue, Mingliang & Sun, Mingyue & Ma, Tingcan, 2024. "Revision and academic impact: A case study of bioRxiv preprint papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1).
    10. Abdelghani Maddi & Luis Miotti, 2024. "On the peer review reports: does size matter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(10), pages 5893-5913, October.
    11. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    12. Ádám Kun, 2020. "Time to Acceptance of 3 Days for Papers About COVID-19," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, June.
    13. Zhao, Zhi-Dan & Chen, Jiahao & Lu, Yichuan & Zhao, Na & Jiang, Dazhi & Wang, Bing-Hong, 2021. "Dynamic patterns of open review process," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 582(C).
    14. Besim Bilalli & Rana Faisal Munir & Alberto Abelló, 2021. "A framework for assessing the peer review duration of journals: case study in computer science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 545-563, January.
    15. Hugo S. Gonçalves & Sérgio Moro, 2023. "On the economic impacts of COVID‐19: A text mining literature analysis," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 375-394, February.
    16. Željko Stević & Irena Đalić & Dragan Pamučar & Zdravko Nunić & Slavko Vesković & Marko Vasiljević & Ilija Tanackov, 2019. "A new hybrid model for quality assessment of scientific conferences based on Rough BWM and SERVQUAL," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(1), pages 1-30, April.
    17. D. R. Amancio & M. G. V. Nunes & O. N. Oliveira & L. F. Costa, 2012. "Using complex networks concepts to assess approaches for citations in scientific papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(3), pages 827-842, June.
    18. Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Corsini, Alberto & Pezzoni, Michele & Visentin, Fabiana, 2022. "What makes a productive Ph.D. student?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(10).
    20. Kurubaran Ganasegeran & Chee Peng Hor & Mohd Fadzly Amar Jamil & Purnima Devi Suppiah & Juliana Mohd Noor & Norshahida Abdul Hamid & Deik Roy Chuan & Mohd Rizal Abdul Manaf & Alan Swee Hock Ch’ng & Ir, 2021. "Mapping the Scientific Landscape of Diabetes Research in Malaysia (2000–2018): A Systematic Scientometrics Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(1), pages 1-20, January.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:10:y:2022:i:4:p:36-:d:932592. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.