3717 - Publication Disparity in Hematologic Radiation Oncology
Presenter(s)
O. Saifi1, M. El-Jammal2, J. L. Peterson1, J. R. Gunther2, C. C. Pinnix2, B. Dabaja2, and B. S. Hoppe3; 1Department of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL, 2Department of Radiation Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, 3Mayo Clinic, Jacksonville, FL
Purpose/Objective(s): Radiation (RT) studies are thought to be more publishable in radiation oncology (RO) journals, and the study content plays a major role in the publication destination. Studies discussing RT for hematological malignancies are perceived to face significant hardship getting published in high impact non-RO journals. This study reports on the trend of lymphoma RT publications in terms of journal type, topic and authors’ specialty.
Materials/Methods: A comprehensive review of papers published between 2020 and 2024 was conducted using SCOPUS (access date: May 30th, 2024). Studies included in our analysis where those with "radiation OR radiotherapy AND lymphoma" in their title. The included studies were then categorized based on their topics into: healthcare outcomes, dosimetry, guidelines, negative clinical outcomes, and positive clinical outcomes. Positive clinical outcomes indicated papers that supported the use of RT. Negative clinical outcomes included papers that recommended either the omission of RT or reported on RT toxicity. Each article was further reviewed to determine the specialty of the first and last author (RO vs non-RO), the number of citations it received, and the impact factor (IF) of the journal in which it was published. Papers were then categorized into two groups: those published in RO journals versus those published in non-RO journals.
Results: 402 papers were published between 2020-2024 and met our inclusion criteria; 108 papers were published in RO and 294 were published in non-RO journals: medical/non-heme oncology (n=180), hematology (n=96), and dermatology, ophthalmology, or other surgical specialties (n=18). RO journals had lower IF (0% vs 13% with IF=10, p<0.001), however, papers published in RO journals were significantly more cited compared to those in non-RO journals with a median citation count of 2 (IQR: 1–6) versus 1 (IQR: 0–4) (p=0.002). Non-RO journals published more papers on RT negative clinical outcomes (n=67; 23%) compared to RO journals (n=11; 10%), (p=0.005). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of published papers reporting positive clinical outcomes (non-RO: n=204; 70% vs RO: n=67; 62%; p=0.16). Among the studies reporting RT negative clinical outcomes (n=78), 15 (19%) were published in high impact factor (IF=10) journals. In contrast, only 19 (7%) of the studies reporting positive clinical outcomes (n=271) appeared in high impact factor journals (p=0.001). Compared to RO, non-RO authors were more likely to publish on RT negative outcomes (n=54; 36% vs n=24; 10%, p<0.001), in high IF=10 (n=25; 17% vs n=13; 5%, p<0.001) and non-RO journals (n=137; 91% vs n=157; 62%, p<0.001).
Conclusion: “Radiation OR Radiotherapy AND lymphoma” studies that are published in RO journals are better cited, despite lower IF. Lymphoma studies reporting on RT negative clinical outcomes are more likely to be published in non-RO and higher IF journals, and by non-RO authors.