A critical analysis of publication rates of national oncology meeting abstracts in Turkey S. Kilickap a , B. Huseyin a , E. Esin b, * , D. Yuce a , M. Hayran a a University of Hacettepe, Cancer Institute, Preventive Oncology Department, Turkey b University of Hacettepe, Cancer Institute, Medical Oncology Department, Turkey article info Article history: Received 4 May 2017 Received in revised form 12 November 2017 Accepted 12 November 2017 Available online 23 November 2017 Keywords: Abstract Full-text Manuscript Peer-review Publication rate abstract Purpose: In this study our aim is to analyze the publication rates of abstracts, which were presented between 2006 and 2011 years in biennial National Cancer Meeting of Turkey (NCM) and Turkish Medical Oncology Society Meeting (TMOSM) and to determine the timely change of publication rates and to predict the quality of the abstracts. Methods: All abstracts, which are either accepted as podium or poster presentations in NCM and TMOM between 2006 and 2011, are extracted. Subsequent publication rate of those abstracts were defined by searching PubMed and Turkish Medical Index. Results: Between 2006 and 2011, overall 2451 abstracts were presented in annual NC and TMOS meet- ings. Of these 2451 abstracts, 286 of them (11.7%) were published in consecutive years. Median publi- cation interval was 11 months. While 28 of 286 (9.8%) abstracts were published in national journals, 258 of them (90.2%) were published in international journals. 97 of a total of 424 podium presentations (22.9%) were published. The publication rate was correlated with the type of presentation (OP vs. PP: 22.9% vs. 9.3%, p < 0.001). The highest publication rate was for prospective studies (%14.4). Majority of abstracts (53.1%) were published in journals indexed within the science citation index (SCI). Rest of the published abstracts were in index of SCI-expanded. Conclusions: Non-publication of research abstracts is a problem for 88.3% of abstracts of this study. The data presented in this study should lead abstract authors to criticize themselves and find a way to improve their study quality. © 2017 Turkish Society of Medical Oncology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 1. Introduction Oncology is a field in constant progress. Physicians should al- ways stay updated, and synchronize with new achievements; otherwise it would end up with lower quality of medical care and even decreased survival outcomes of patients. Oncology meetings are important events for sharing knowledge. In addition, those meetings are important steps in the lifespan of a clinical trial, since they are the first places in which the results of trials are mentioned, published and received acceptance. 1 The ab- stracts presented in the meetings have an important place in a researcher's academic training, as well. 2 It is widely accepted that scientific quality of meetings depends on accepted abstracts as oral and poster presentations. 3 Acceptance of abstracts as the earliest scientific evidence is a controversial issue for many years. In order to accept abstracts as scientifically approved material, quality of abstracts should be measured meth- odologically. One way to measure the quality of abstracts is to look at their publication rates. The publication rates varies between 31,6% and 74% from various medical specialty meetings. 1,3e8 In oncology, publication process is even more important than other specialties; because new de- velopments are not easily achieved, translational medicine is hard to complete and every effort should be made to improve medical care to save lives. A previous Cochrane review reported that the publication rates of abstracts presented in oncology meetings were ranged between 35.5% and 81.3%. 9 In this study our aim is to analyze the publication rates of ab- stracts, which were presented between 2006 and 2011 years in biennial National Cancer Meeting of Turkey (NCM) and Turkish * Corresponding author. Ece ES _ IN University of Hacettepe, Cancer Institute, Medical Oncology Department, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey. E-mail address: dr.eceesin@gmail.com (E. Esin). Peer review under responsibility of Turkish Society of Medical Oncology. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Oncological Sciences journal homepage: https://www.elsevier.com/locate/jons https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jons.2017.11.001 2452-3364/© 2017 Turkish Society of Medical Oncology. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Journal of Oncological Sciences 4 (2018) 24e28