The wealth of nations and the dissemination of cardiovascular research.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed at understanding whether investigators from less wealthy countries were at a disadvantage in disseminating their research, after accounting for potential differences in research quality and infrastructure. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this bibliometric analysis a representative random selection of 10% (n=1002 studies) of all abstracts submitted to the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) congress 2006 was followed for publication and citation from September 2006 to December 2011. The main variable of interest was the per-capita gross domestic product (GDP) of the country of the principal investigator. Using multivariable models that adjusted for socioeconomic indicators and previously identified markers of research quality, we examined the relationship between per-capita GDP and three study endpoints: Acceptance at the ESC congress, full-text publication, and number of two-year citations. Among 1002 abstracts from 63 countries, per-capita GDP was positively correlated with all three study endpoints. After adjusting for markers of research quality and infrastructure, per-capita GDP remained a strong predictor for acceptance at the ESC congress (adjusted OR for every 10,000 USD increase in per-capita GDP, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.15 to 1.80), full-text publication within 5years (adjusted OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.90), and high citation frequency (adjusted OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.31 to 4.04). These findings were largely consistent in a subgroup of abstracts of high-quality, prospective clinical trials. CONCLUSION: Investigators in less wealthy countries face challenges to disseminate their research, even after accounting for potential differences in the quality of their work and research infrastructure.

From abstract to impact in cardiovascular research: factors predicting publication and citation.

AIMS: Through a 4-year follow-up of the abstracts submitted to the European Society of Cardiology Congress in 2006, we aimed at identifying factors predicting high-quality research, appraising the quality of the peer review and editorial processes, and thereby revealing potential ways to improve future research, peer review, and editorial work. METHODS AND RESULTS All abstracts submitted in 2006 were assessed for acceptance, presentation format, and average reviewer rating. Accepted and rejected studies were followed for 4 years. Multivariate regression analyses of a representative selection of 10% of all abstracts (n= 1002) were performed to identify factors predicting acceptance, subsequent publication, and citation. A total of 10 020 abstracts were submitted, 3104 (31%) were accepted for poster, and 701 (7%) for oral presentation. At Congress level, basic research, a patient number ≥ 100, and prospective study design were identified as independent predictors of acceptance. These factors differed from those predicting full-text publication, which included academic affiliation. The single parameter predicting frequent citation was study design with randomized controlled trials reaching the highest citation rates. The publication rate of accepted studies was 38%, whereas only 24% of rejected studies were published. Among published studies, those accepted at the Congress received higher citation rates than rejected ones. CONCLUSIONS: Research of high quality was determined by study design and largely identified at Congress level through blinded peer review. The scientometric follow-up revealed a marked disparity between predictors of full-text publication and those predicting citation or acceptance at the Congress.