SWCS ABSTRACT REVIEW GUIDELINES

The Program Committee has developed and agreed to a list of minimum abstract standards that every abstract must meet. Our goal is to enable all submitted abstracts to be included in the SWCS final program. Some abstracts may not meet minimal standards, but we expect that most abstracts will be acceptable without revision. The purpose of these guidelines is to enable the reviewer to easily identify substandard abstracts. If an abstract does not meet minimal standards the reviewer will notify the Program Committee Vice chair who will notify the author and work with them to bring the abstract up to standard.

Additionally, in the event that we receive more abstract submissions than the host meeting facilities or 3-day program can accommodate, we may be required to limit the number of abstract submissions chosen for the final program. We have developed criteria for screening abstracts in the event that abstract submissions must be limited.

See also:
Sample Abstracts...

STANDARDS

1)       Abstract word limit is 250 words.

2)       The Abstract should include the following components:

a)       Explanation of the importance of the research or activity

b)       Objectives/Goals/Purpose

c)       Methods

d)       Results/Expected results

e)       Conclusion/Summary

Abstract review/screening criteria:

The technical review uses the following review criteria:

1.       Importance and Relevance of Topic

2.       Innovation and Contribution to Knowledge Base

3.       Clarity and Completeness  – made up of the following: overall quality, purposes and objectives, theoretical and/or applied focus, research/activity methods, findings, and potential practical application. 

THE FOLLOWING WILL BE USED AS A GUIDE:

Topic: 

·         Does the topic have current relevance?

Textual Features of the Abstract:

·         Is the abstract well organized and clearly written?

·         Does the author indicate the potential contributions of the study to science/society?

Research Design:

·         Has the author provided explicit background information?

·         Has the author provided sufficient information about the data collection and analysis procedures (if applicable)?

Results:

·         Are the results of empirical studies discussed, or in the case where the study has not yet been carried out, are there predictions about the expected direction of the findings?

·         Are the results likely to be of value to the field?