There are no specific guidelines for abstract selection for conferences worldwide. But the following points should be taken into consideration while preparing an abstract for a conference:

1. State of Completion: The abstract must show substantial results indicating that the work has been, or is nearly completed.

2. Novelty: The abstract must show innovative information, or presents a new topic or application in the field of interest.

3. Advancement of field: The abstract should present a significant contribution to the field, and the authors must specify how the paper will contribute to the development of global knowledge

4. Quality: The quality of an abstract will be considered indicative of the quality of the final presentation by the reviewers. Authors should prepare their abstracts with care, assuring that the reader will understand the background of the issue(s) and the objectives of the presentation.

5. Relevance: Material presented in abstracts must be concise and coherent, with the focus of the abstract and its relevance to an international audience stated clearly.

Final decisions by the committee will be based on scores

Actually, there is no uniform system for the evaluation of an abstract to be accepted in a conference, howevere, the variation is mainly depending on the conference quality and also for the organizing or scientific committe. Some conferences have external referees and others have only internal or local referees. The only guidelines provided by the conferences is the writing style and number of words. Some conferences are asking for the paper in order to be published as proceedings and others are not. IN conclusion, my personal experience is that quality and novelty are major points to consider.

Unfortunately no

Unfortunately. as far as I know, there is not, except for the suggestions given by Mr. Mohamed Ahmed.

This is normally down to criteria set by the (international or local) organising committee.

the criteria depend on ratio of submission and how many you need for the conferences. as ratio goes up the criteria becomes more strict. a good conference is judged by conversion of presentation to indexed publication. so one can demand PECOT format used by evidence based medicine review. (p = population, e = exposures, c = cases and control, o = outcomes and t = time factor

The organizing committee will assess your submitted abstract, personal details and your motivation for the scholarship. So, the submitted abstract is not only factor for giving the scholarship.

There are no specific guidelines for abstract selection for conferences worldwide. But the following points should be taken into consideration while preparing an abstract for a conference:

1. State of Completion: The abstract must show substantial results indicating that the work has been, or is nearly completed.

2. Novelty: The abstract must show innovative information, or presents a new topic or application in the field of interest.

3. Advancement of field: The abstract should present a significant contribution to the field, and the authors must specify how the paper will contribute to the development of global knowledge

4. Quality: The quality of an abstract will be considered indicative of the quality of the final presentation by the reviewers. Authors should prepare their abstracts with care, assuring that the reader will understand the background of the issue(s) and the objectives of the presentation.

5. Relevance: Material presented in abstracts must be concise and coherent, with the focus of the abstract and its relevance to an international audience stated clearly.

Final decisions by the committee will be based on scores

give priority to meta analysis, review article and RCT then longitudinal studies and last will be case series.

use evidence based medicines PICOT. If abstract include all parameters that one is good ranking abstract for scholarship

Most of the conferences from India do not grade the abstract. Instead they place less important ones in the poster sections. conferences only review abstracts when there is a possibility of those abstracts getting published in a journal as it remains journals criteria

Yes Sir. We are planning to publish our abstracts in International Journal of Epidemiology and we have to give the scholarships for the best abstracts presenting authors. That's why we are planning to make a proper rule for selection of abstracts.

Dear Scientist's thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. These answers are very helpful for us.

In case of abstracts in my opinion, should be blindly reviewed by 5 reviewers or subject experts. A score of 3/5 should be sufficient for acceptance. Again what is the need for screening is that we have quality research abstracts in journals which later turn out to be full research articles that contribute to existing literature. not that all should be original or novel.

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF ABSTRACT FOR CONFERENCE;

1. Title / Structured Headings / Overall Presentation: 0 – 1 point

Is the title specific, adequate and concise? Does it accurately describe the population studied, the study design or method of data collection or analysis, the research objective or question?

2. Introduction/ Objectives / Hypotheses or Research Question(s): 0 – 1 points

Is the context made clear? Is the scientific rationale clearly stated? Are the aims, objectives, hypotheses or research question(s) clearly stated?

3. Methods: 0 – 3 points

3.1. For all types of study, are the Methods clearly described? Are the data sources clearly specified? Are the methods, analytical techniques and software tools specified? Are the methods appropriate to the question being investigated?

3.2. For qualitative studies: Are qualitative methods appropriate to answering the research questions/addressing research objectives? Are the recruitment method(s), sample population(s), methods of data collection, and methods of data analyses described and appropriate?

3.3. For quantitative, observational experimental or modelling studies: Are the sample frame(s), sampling method(s), sample population(s), intervention and control conditions, methods of data collection, main outcome measures, assumptions and statistical methods all clear and appropriate?

3.4. For mixed methods: Is there appropriate use of quantitative/qualitative methods, each clearly described, in an order that makes sense, and each appropriately integrated at the right stage of the analysis/interpretation?

3.5. Systematic reviews: Should state objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, search strategy (e.g. data/text mining), participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods (e.g. meta-analysis, meta-regression, narrative synthesis, meta-ethnography). Has the risk of bias and quality of the included studies been considered?

4. Results: 0 – 3 points

Are results available and described appropriately to be confident that sufficient material will be presented at the conference? Abstracts should not say only that ‘results will be presented’.

4.1. For quantitative, observational experimental or mixed methods studies: Do data presented give a clear indication of precision, favouring confidence intervals over p-values? Do modelling studies present sensitivity analyses?

4.2. For qualitative and mixed methods studies: Are the sample characteristics described? Are themes and/or categories presented systematically and meaningfully? Is the context in which data were produced recognised in the language used, for example, are data recognised as reported?

4.3. For mixed methods: Describe the data resulting from each method as well as integrated analyses.

4.4. Systematic reviews: Should report search results at each stage plus main outcomes.

5. Conclusions: 0 – 2 points

Are the conclusions clear and concise? Do they reflect the aims and objectives? Are they supported by the results presented? Are key study limitations acknowledged? Where appropriate, are the implications made clear for policy, practice and further research?

6. Interest, appeal and impact: 0 – 5 points

Is it interesting? Does it have the potential to create impact (i.e. change clinical or public health practice or policy, improve health, reduce inequalities in health, change the course of science)? Is it novel/exciting/much better methodologically than other studies in the area?

Sure, agree with Dr. Jagan, for good description of the abstract style. However, each conference has a selection and guidelines for abstract, but overall completely agree with this nice description.

Thank you Dr. Sherif and Ma. Anna Rita Marfil Ramirez

Very comprehensive Dr Nadipelly and Dr Fahmi Khan. Thank you

We find this related publication:

Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts

Article Development and evaluation of a quality score for abstracts

Yours, Eduard Baladia

Thank you Dr. Nadipelly for a very comprehensive set of criteria for the selection of abstracts.

This is a very comprehensive answer. Thank you. Very helpful.