Table 1 Comparison between authors and reviewers of congress abstracts and papers submitted to scientific journals
Congress abstracts (e.g. ERS International Congress)Manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals
Number of submissions to consider1-2, max 3Around 5011
Personal involvement, emotional dedicationHighNoneHigh, situated in a very dedicated groupLittle, at best
Knowledge of the research performedOften very detailedNoneExpertNone
Expertise in the research fieldRanging from low to highUsually highUsually rather highHigh
Perceived acceptance rateAccurateToo highToo lowAccurate
Abstract/manuscript contentGood enough to warrant a congress presentationRanging from excellent to extremely poorGood with important clinical/scientific messageRanging from excellent to extremely poor
Abstract/manuscript structureAccurate, self-satisfactoryFrom excellent to poorAs good as can beFrom excellent to poor
Assigned timeOne to a few monthsFew daysRanging from months to yearsUsually two to four weeks
General opinion about the contributed workFirst congress: “Acceptance rate should be higher!” Later on: “Too many low quality abstracts are accepted!”Anywhere from “Excellent” to “Very poor” (sometimes in the same session)“Improving with every contribution I make”From “Why is this even being reviewed?” to “I want to write an editorial on this!”