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)
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.”
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)srsweb.org.