Rule Changes for ICS 2009 - Goals:
Rather than minor textual revisions from the previous year (as in previous years), the entire rules were rewritten from scratch with the following aims:
-
To make them as short as possible
-
To remove any ambiguous rules
-
To use the simplest clear English
-
To remove any rules that were not enforced
-
To change our submission system to avoid any problems that caused rejection
Rule changes - Outcomes:
-
The rules were shortened from 2 pages to 1 page
-
Abstract Length became a recommendation – those that were too short presumably did not contain enough data and would be downgraded on Scientific Merit during the review process.
-
References/Anonymity – caused many rejections in previous years – this year these details were taken online and were not shown to the reviewer – avoiding this problem completely.
-
A checklist at the end of the submission process asked authors to confirm that they had obeyed the key rules.
-
Rejections fell from 28.4% in 2008 to only 8.7% in 2009 – a massive reduction!!
Review Process Changes
-
Number of Reviewers increased 4x by utilising external reviewers (Editorial Board of N&U invited)
-
A new review system was developed to score and review papers online – speeding up the process and reducing administration time – also enabling the Scientific Chair to have a real-time view of the review process.
-
Reviewers could choose their own specialty topics to review
-
Reviewers could read / score their allocated abstracts online, giving them more time to review, with a reduced workload and higher number of reviewers per abstract
-
Visual indicators allowed the administrators to view which reviewers had completed their workload and which categories needed more reviewers – email reminders were send automatically to reviewers until the process was complete.
Scientific Programme Format
Format of programme was changed to accommodate more presented abstracts (as the number presented had stayed the same despite the rise in abstract submissions since 2000). The following “scientific” principles were introduced to determine the size of the programme:
Podium/Poster: Score > 0.5 x Standard Deviation above the Mean
Non-Discussion Posters: Score ± 0.5 x Standard Deviation from the Mean
Read by Title: Score >0.5 x Standard Deviation below the Mean
Podium Video
Another innovation for 2009 were Podium Videos Sessions for the highest quality videos – with authors and delegates Q&A. The new revised video rules and the big marketing push made for ICS Videos had a very good response with video submissions up both in numbers, scientific merit and quality of presentation.
Abstract Submissions 2000 – 2009
The overall upward trend of abstract submissions over the last decade continues…
|
Conference
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS & IUGA
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
ICS
|
|
City
|
Tampere
|
Seoul
|
Heidelberg
|
Florence
|
Paris
|
Montreal
|
Christchurch
|
Rotterdam
|
Cairo
|
San Francisco
|
|
Country
|
Finland
|
Korea
|
Germany
|
Italy
|
France
|
Canada
|
NZ
|
Netherlands
|
Egypt
|
USA
|
|
Year
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
2008
|
2009
|
|
Withdrawn
|
0
|
0
|
20
|
16
|
11
|
7
|
13
|
19
|
41
|
32
|
|
Rejected
|
0
|
0
|
71
|
175
|
204
|
188
|
226
|
107
|
271
|
88
|
|
Read by Title
|
111
|
0
|
15
|
163
|
416
|
289
|
186
|
250
|
62
|
278
|
|
Video
|
4
|
0
|
16
|
25
|
28
|
18
|
0
|
0
|
18
|
30
|
|
Non-Discussion Posters
|
0
|
254
|
385
|
303
|
188
|
271
|
192
|
188
|
424
|
309
|
|
Poster
|
224
|
105
|
88
|
96
|
94
|
88
|
110
|
89
|
112
|
232
|
|
Podium
|
26
|
25
|
37
|
34
|
37
|
34
|
26
|
26
|
26
|
34
|
|
Total Abstracts Submitted
|
365
|
384
|
632
|
812
|
978
|
895
|
753
|
679
|
954
|
1003
|
Call for Abstracts – ICS 2009 A new Record!
This year we have again broken all records for abstract submission – more than any previous year, beating the previous record held by the ICS & IUGA joint meeting in Paris 2004:
N.B. This year there was a much more even split: Presented / Non-Discussion / Read by Title with far fewer Rejected (down from 28% in 2008 to 9% in 2009).
New Online Review System
- Reviewers choose the categories that they specialise in, read the anonymous abstracts and score them – all online
- Abstracts can be read online or downloaded en masse - scoring abstracts is very easy and fast
- Once reviewed, the reviewer can see at a glance their previous scores
- Review Administration – top reviewer was Heinz Koelbl who reviewed a staggering 568 Abstracts !!!
The ICS 2009 Scientific Committee working hard to create the Scientific Programme:
Sponsored USB Stick
|
Ferring sponsored production of a USB Stick allowing delegates to search all the ICS 2009 Abstracts and for the first time watch all abstract videos at their leisure. USB Sticks will be available to all delegates from the ICS Booth at the meeting.
|
|
The automated confirmation system allowed us to confirm and finalise the programme in record time, producing a massive 377 page Abstracts Issue of N&U in record time.
ICS 2009 Abstracts Issue
Journal of Neurourology & Urodynamics, Volume 28, Issue 7, pp567-935 (377 printed pages)
I would like to thank the members of my committee for all their hard work and to all those who volunteered from the Editorial Board to act as external reviewers – their expertise and commitment have contributed to the biggest scientific meeting in ICS history, with a truly fantastic scientific programme as a result.
On behalf of the ICS 2009 Scientific Committee,
|
|
Professor Karl Kreder
ICS 2009 Scientific Committee Chair
|