The ABSTRACT REVIEW System will close on February 23 (11:59 PM US Central TIme)

Below are some important guidelines for abstract review.

1. Treat all submissions as confidential. Some are pending patent approval.

2. If you recognize a submission as from a colleague which may present a conflict of interest, please indicate this in the system.

3. Be familiar with our scoring criteria

  • Scientific merit – Is the abstract novel, interesting? Does it enhance an existing procedure/process?

  • Organization – Are the key elements included (background, methods, results, etc.)?

  • Technical quality – Does the idea stand up to scrutiny?

  • Language – Is the abstract well written, grammatically correct, and using appropriate nomenclature?

  • Completeness: If the abstract refers to a novel compound, is the compound properly identified (not simply a number)? Is the compound’s structure discussed?

4. Be familiar with our scoring scale (and definitions)

5 Outstanding
4 Good
3 Fair
2 Poor
1 Unacceptable

Please note: We have included a confidential comments box (which only organizers can see). Here you may make any comments that you think are relevant, including how you think a particular abstract should be presented (oral or poster).

Tips for Consistent Scoring

  • There is no right or wrong approach, but below is some guidance that will help you score consistently:

  • Most reviewers read all abstracts first, before rating to get a “general feel” for the overall range.

  • Some rate the abstracts at two sittings independently; then compare scores.

  • Others rank order after scoring, then compare scores to see if they are consistent with the ranking.

  • Some reviewers review highly and poorly rated abstracts again to ensure fairness.

Some actual examples (to possibly help you develop a review plan that is useful for you and contributes to consistent scoring):

“I jot notes on each abstract and give each a quick mark. I then set aside the abstracts that I reacted to most strongly - both positively and negatively…in a day or two I re-read and re-mark each abstract in a more careful manner….I find that a bit of time for reflection helps me determine what engendered that strong positive or negative reaction on initial reading and whether that response was valid. These abstracts often have a more significant change in mark on second reading.”

Another approach:

  • I read through all the abstracts first.

  • Next, I graded them using the questions [criteria] following each abstract

  • Then I created an Excel summary of my evaluations, and rank ordered them to determine whether my grades reflected my assessment of the relative strength of each abstract.

  • Then I compared my grading with your evaluation scale definitions

  • I then translated my original ratings to reflect the goals of the defined rating system. I ensured the rank order was preserved.

Lastly, for your reference, each submitter was provided with these abstract submission specifics

  • The body of the abstract is limited to 650 words; this includes any words used in tables as part of the abstract body.

  • Abstract title and author/affiliation information do not count against he 650 word total.

  • Only one .JPG image may be uploaded, though you may combine up to three images into one .JPG file. Images will be displayed electronically in color, but grayscale (black & white) in the print version of JLCR.

  • You are strongly encouraged to organize your abstract according to the standard subtitles: Objectives, Methods, Results, Conclusions, Acknowledgments, and References.

  • You are also strongly encouraged to follow the nomenclature guidelines recently published by an international working group.

  • Use only one table in the body of your abstract or, possibly, two small tables.

  • The goal is to print each abstract on one page.

  • Abstracts must include actual data and not simply be overviews.

  • If the abstract refers to a compound, the compound should be properly identified (not simply a number).

  • The structure of novel compounds should be discussed in the acceptable abstract.

If you have any questions, please contact Joe Meek - jmeek(a)