POLL RESULTS: Encore at Original-only Congress

Medical publication policies and guidelines offer a framework for best practices, but there may be situations when more than one approach seems reasonable. The primary purpose of “What Would You Do?” is to explore examples of such situations. With the limited information provided to interpret the scenarios, you may find yourself agreeing with one, more than one, or none of the proposed actions. And that’s the point ‒ you should debate, contemplate, and communicate (with a comment) before selecting your “best” answer. 

Now let’s find out how you responded and read through some commentary (for context only; not meant to be comprehensive) to the below scenario:

The publication team is eager to submit an abstract to a prestigious congress, but you face a dilemma. The congress explicitly states that it accepts original content only, whereas the publication team wants to develop an abstract based on data from three previously shared abstracts/publications. As the publication lead, you need to decide on the best course of action.

What Would You Do?

1. Use the data from the three previous abstracts/publications as a foundation, but synthesize new insights, analyses, or perspectives. By presenting the information in a way that contributes fresh and innovative content, it should meet the congress’s originality requirement.
2. Identify a specific aspect or dimension of the data that has not been extensively explored in the previous publications. By narrowing the focus and delving deeper into this specific aspect, original findings can be generated to fulfill congress guidelines, although you may not be able to include all of the data that the publication team wants.
3. Reach out to the congress organizers to discuss the situation to help determine whether the use of some data from the previous publications is acceptable and to what extent new elements may be needed for the abstract to meet the criteria set by the congress.
4. Forgo the submission. Considering the originality requirement, a different congress that allows the submission of previously published data is more appropriate.

Poll results represent a total of 109 responses.

In this scenario, we are told that the congress only accepts original content. The recommended action would be Option C, with the understanding that the team may end up with the situation described in Option D if the congress is strict and follows its guidance to the letter of the law.

In reality, many prestigious congresses provide abstract guidelines that can be summarized/paraphrased as follows: Abstracts must address scientific questions or clinical observations using original scientific data; repeat submissions of previously presented data are not permitted. Abstracts with updated data from previous presentations may be submitted if authors clearly specify significant new findings and provide details of prior presentation/publication for reference; submissions that violate this policy may be rejected. Long-term follow-up data are only acceptable if they offer significant new insights; authors must describe these updates in the submission.

Essentially, encores (a previously submitted abstract, possibly with minor formatting or word count adjustments to meet the specific requirements of the new conference) are not allowed. However, adaptations (an abstract that includes previously presented data but also incorporates new data, analyses, or interpretations) are allowable if significant new findings are included. One should consider sending an inquiry to the congress organizers (Option C) to determine whether the proposed submission has sufficient merit because “significant new findings” is subjective. Moreover, this could save time and resources in the event of outright rejection due to the content not meeting the congress’s originality criteria. Finally, we want to avoid salami slicing, which is the deliberate practice of submitting similar data from a single study to multiple congresses (1).

Option A and Option B are different approaches for developing an adaptation, and the specific path to take may depend on the target congress, abstract track/category, and/or audience. Option A is better suited for a broader, general congress or audience while Option B would be supportive of a more specialized, targeted congress or audience. However, when targeting prestigious congresses with high rejection rates, it is generally a good idea to connect with the organizers to gain insights on whether the abstract would be considered before committing to either of these approaches, especially if the publications team is not experienced with what content the congress would accept. Acting with transparency is a hallmark of Good Publication Practice (2, 3).

Eric Y. Wong, PhD, MBA, ISMPP CMPP^TM, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine

This article was prepared by the author in his personal capacity. The opinions expressed within are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicine.

References

1. Eva KW. How would you like your salami? A guide to slicing. Med Educ. 2017 May;51(5):456-457. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13285
2. DeTora LM, Toroser D, Sykes A, et al. Good Publication Practice (GPP) guidelines for company-sponsored biomedical research: 2022 update. Ann Intern Med. 2022 Sep;175(9):1298-1304. https://doi.org/10.7326/M22-1460
3. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [homepage on the Internet]. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals [Accessed July 1, 2025] Available from: https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf