A Comprehensive Evaluation of Abstracts from National Cardiology Congresses Based on the 2016 Academic Criteria Ulusal Kardiyoloji Kongreleri Bildiri Özetlerinin 2016 Akademik Kriterlerine Göre Kapsamlı Bir Değerlendirmesi
Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi, cilt.51, sa.8, ss.523-530, 2023 (ESCI, Scopus, TRDizin)
- Yayın Türü: Makale / Derleme
- Cilt numarası: 51 Sayı: 8
- Basım Tarihi: 2023
- Doi Numarası: 10.5543/tkda.2023.69226
- Dergi Adı: Turk Kardiyoloji Dernegi Arsivi
- Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Central & Eastern European Academic Source (CEEAS), Directory of Open Access Journals, TR DİZİN (ULAKBİM)
- Sayfa Sayıları: ss.523-530
- Anahtar Kelimeler: Abstract, academic journal, impact factor, publication, Turkish Society of Cardiology
- Açık Arşiv Koleksiyonu: AVESİS Açık Erişim Koleksiyonu
- Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet
Özet
Objective: This study aims to describe the effects of the new academic criteria, established in 2016, on the abstracts presented at the National Congress of the Turkish Society of Cardiology (NCTSC). Methods: Abstracts from 13 consecutive annual congresses were reviewed. A literature search using PubMed, Google Scholar, and Web of Science databases determined if an abstract was later published in a scientific journal. Abstracts was divided into two time groups based on 2016 academic criteria: Group 1 contained 4,828 abstracts accepted for NCTSC from 2009 to 2016, and Group 2 had 2,284 abstracts accepted for NCTSC from 2017 to 2021. Results: Between 2009-2021, 7,112 abstracts were accepted into the NCTSC scientific program. Group 2 exhibited a lower publication rate (43.2 vs. 23.9%, P < 0.001), fewer authors [7 (5-9) vs. 4 (3-6), P < 0.001], and a reduced rate of original investigations (72.3% vs. 56.5%, P < 0.001) compared to Group 1. Concerning the quality metrics of journals where the abstracts were published, Group 2 had a lower impact factor (0.59 ± 1.71 vs. 0.26 ± 1.09, P < 0.001), decreased presence in the science citation index or science citation index-expanded indices (70.4% vs. 57.9%, P < 0.001), and a smaller representation in the second or third quartile (24.2% vs. 16.1%, P < 0.001) than Group 1. Being in Group 1, oral presentations, original investigations, and cardiac imaging were identified as independent predictors for subsequent publication in scientific journals. Conclusion: The study reveals that the 2016 academic criteria negatively impacted the publication processes of abstracts accepted at NCTSCs.