A Comprehensive Evaluation of Abstracts from National Cardiology Congresses Based on the 2016 Academic Criteria

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.