Thank you for taking the time to review abstracts for our up coming annual meeting in Tokyo.
Reviewing closed 24th April 2016
#Selection
You will be asked to select which research type, broad categories and keywords you wish to review. You will then be asked for the total number of abstracts in your selection. We suggest you choose 100 abstracts to review. Experience shows that selecting too many abstracts to review is likely to lead to reviewer fatigue and reduce the quality of your scores.
#Scoring
On the scoring page you can view each abstract by clicking on the book icon next to abstract title.
Click the abstract ID number to view it's scoring controls and review totals.
Important
- Never score any abstract of which you are an author or co-author.
- Please only review abstracts if its specific contents are within your understanding.
Four criteria are used for the scoring of the abstracts:
- OR Originality / Topicality
- SM Scientific Merit
- CR Clinical / Scientific Relevance
- VQ Video Quality (Video abstracts only)
For each criterion, your scores can be:
- 5 Excellent
- 4 Very Good
- 3 Good
- 2 Fair
- 1 Poor
Originality / Topicality (OR)
- Addresses issue of current importance and interest to ICS members
- Topic is of fundamental interest the audience of ICS
- Promotes discussion of understudied but important topic
- Unique or interesting approach to a topic
- An update of a common topic when new information becomes available
Scientific Merit (SM)
- Research design perfectly matched to the research question
- Analysis is appropriate to research design, research question and type of data.
- Scientific study is immaculately conducted
Clinical / Scientific Relevance (CR)
- Abstract content is supported by evidence, focusing on high-quality research findings
- abstract will have significant impact on delegates’ way of thinking and practice
- Will challenge their minds and give excellent take home messages and actions
- Will encourage new research into the area
Video Quality (VQ) (video abstracts only)
- Impeccable audiovisual quality
- anatomical landmarks clearly indicated
If there is not enough information in the abstract to score any specific criteria, then the abstract should score “Poor” in those criteria.
Please try to score each criterion as independently as possible to the other criteria.
Thus an abstract might score "Excellent" for Originality/Topicality and "Very Good" for Clinical/Scientific relevance, but "Poor" for Scientific Merit - or any other combination.
##Reviewer Actions
NOTES
You must enter a comment about each abstract. If you feel that the abstract is excellent, poor or If you feel neutral about the abstract then please indicate that here along with any other notes that you may deem appropriate.
Please note that we are not combining abstracts so if there are two similar abstracts, the abstract with the best score will be selected.
NO SCORE
Click this button if you are an author or co-author of the abstract as you must not score your own work. Or if you feel the content of the abstract is outside of your understanding.
SAVE
You must click the save button for your notes and scores to be saved for each abstract before moving on to the next.
##Reviewer Actions for Scientific Committee members only
PODIUM
If you feel that the application should absolutely be placed in the programme then please click this button. Be selective - this should only be for the abstracts you consider to be the *very* best so that we can discriminate using this flag in the meeting.
REJECT
Click this button If your opinion is that the abstract is completely inadequate, that is, it is outside of the ICS topics, does not conform to the abstract submission rules or meet ethical grounds.
Give a brief justification in the comment box, but please do score the abstract.
Read the Abstract Submission Rules
WRONG CATEGORY
Click this button if you think that an abstract has been submitted under the wrong category - you can now change the category directly yourself from a dropdown - it will update when you save.