Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Journal of Urological Surgery, cilt.12, sa.2, ss.94-98, 2025 (ESCI, TRDizin)
Objective: Numerous local and international meetings are held in the field of medicine. Up-to-date information and experiences are shared at these meetings. It also provides an opportunity to pave the way for collaborations. There is a need for an objective and reliable tool to evaluate conference quality. In our study, we aimed to develop an objective and understandable quality factor (QF) that evaluates scientific congresses. Materials and Methods: Between 2021 and 2022, abstract books of four national meetings of the Society of Urological Surgery in Turkey (MSUST) were reviewed [(2012 (MSUST1), 2014 (MSUST2), 2016 (MSUST3), 2018 (MSUST4)]. A total of 1,436 abstracts were evaluated. The publication status of the abstracts presented at a conference in scientific articles a scientific journal within the first two years was investigated in scientific journals using the Web of Science, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The impact factors of the scientific journals in which Abstracts were published and the H Indices of the scientists invited as speakers to the congress were taken from the Web of Science database. The H-index values of the speakers at the time of their participation in the meeting were considered. Considering these three parameters, we created a QF for scientific congresses. QF = [(abstracts publication rate in two years x average impact factor of journals) + average H Index of speakers]/10. Results: MSUST1, MSUST2, MSUST3, and MSUST4 had a follow-up of 96, 72, 48, and 24 months, respectively. The percentages of abstracts in MSUST1, MSUST2, MSUST3, and MSUST4 were 31.6%, 19.9%, 13.8%, and 14.1%, respectively, with no time limit set for inclusion, and all were published in a scientific journal. Median publication times of Abstracts in MSUST1, MSUST2, MSUST3, and MSUST4 were 23 (-2 to 88), 11 (-2 to -60), 10.5 (-2 to -39), and 7 (-2 to -24) months. The average H-index of the speakers at the UCD4 meeting was 13.6±11.5, the average impact factor of the journals in which abstracts was published was 2.029±0.84, and the rate of publication of abstracts in a 24-month period was 14.1%. With the formula we suggested, the QF of the MSUST4 meeting was calculated as 4.22 [(14.1x2.029)+13.6]/10=4.22. Conclusion: The QF we recommend is easy to calculate and can be used objectively to evaluate the quality of scientific meetings. However, our primary goal is to draw attention to this direction, instead of developing this formula. We believe this tool will help physicians manage their time, energy, and financial resources.