Evolution and Validation 0f Practice Standards, Training, and Professional Development
| d. | Availability of travel funding |
|---|
Priorities of key coauthors
Location of the meeting (unfortunate, but true …)
Encore presentations permitted
Succinct and effective
Greatest impact in the least space – No unnecessary words
ii.
Use of identifiable abbreviations, but not to excess
iii.
If allowed, use of tables to present results (many disallow)
Title must be brief, be on point, and capture the reader.
Clearly stated purpose/objective (minimize introductory material). May need to limit to primary
objective.
| d. | Methods and analysis are concise but of adequate detail to permit review. |
|---|
Results may need to be limited to the primary end point.
Conclusion is a single brief sentence directly tied to the objective(s).
Must meet word or character count limit (tricks and tips depend on organization)
Revise, revise, revise with input from all authors – Eliminate unnecessary words and content.
Some organizations may permit students or residents to submit abstracts without data or with partial
data.
Abstract submission
Greatly simplified by electronic submission
Must meet deadline – Most websites shut down after deadline.
Must carefully follow online instructions
| d. | Pay careful attention to the abstract categories (e.g., clinical practice, original research) to be sure |
|---|
the abstract is submitted under the proper category.
Word limit usually controlled by software – Difficult to cheat
If platform presentations are an option, usually need to indicate consideration for platform, if that
is the goal
Platform versus poster
Platform slots are intended for presentations that have high-quality content and that are relevant and
effective.
Usually based on reviewer scores
Many organizations may accept a platform submission as a poster presentation if it was not scored
high enough to be accepted as a platform; others may just reject it.
| d. | Authors must be realistic concerning the quality of their abstract when considering submission for |
|---|
a platform, given the meeting, audience, and likely competing research.
Review process
Typically reviewed by three to five reviewers
Review uses relatively limited scoring criteria, given the brevity of an abstract, combined with a
recommendation of accept or reject.
Reviews are compiled into an overall score, and recommendation is provided to the authors.
| d. | There is no opportunity or time for revision and resubmission. Decisions are final. |
|---|
Reviewer comments may or may not be shared with the authors.
Platform versus poster decisions may also be an outcome of the review process.
Review process may also be used for determining abstracts to be considered for awards.
Poster presentation
Format (size and/or style) is often specified by the organization.
Many tips and tricks are available for developing effective posters. Some key issues are:
Avoid wordy posters – Nobody wants to read them.