Abstract Review

Committees

Wide member participation in the abstract review process for all sessions is essential for creating a successful program. A number of committees (comprised of our members) review submitted abstracts.

Specialty Sessions, including the Collection Care Session, usually have review committees comprised of the elected officers of a particular specialty group and chaired by the group’s program chair.

General, Poster, and Pre-sessions each have their own committees.  The board's vice president chairs these committees and serves as overall program chair for the meeting’s plenary (all-attendee/non-specialty) sessions. The vice president appoints members to serve on these committees with the aim of representing a diversity of approaches and expertise within the conservation field.

Process

Committee members read each abstract, discuss its merits, and consider its potential place in the final program. We are fortunate to receive many high quality abstracts each year. In general, we receive many more abstracts than we can accommodate in the final program. While deliberations of each review committee are strictly confidential, authors may request further information from the meetings director on staff in the case of rejected submissions. 

Criteria

Relevance/Significance of Topic

• Is the subject matter new or innovative?
• Does the paper/poster demonstrate creative problem-solving, important information of use to the field, or include informative case studies?
• Does the subject matter focus on the art/culture of underrepresented groups (BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, or PWD)?
• Is the project especially relevant for a local, regional, or national community?
• Does it involve diverse stakeholders or focus on community collaboration?
• Does the topic represent an opposing point of view, or a viewpoint not often considered in conservation?
• Is the topic in keeping with the theme of the meeting?
• Has the author published this work or presented a similar paper at other conferences? (Please note, we are seeking new work that has not been presented previously.)

Purpose/Hypothesis/Outcomes

• Is the purpose of the presentation or hypothesis of the research clearly stated? 
• For research yet to be completed, will the outcomes be useful regardless of results?
• Is the author list appropriate? (E.g. If scientific analysis forms the basis of the talk, is the scientist listed as an author? If the work is community-based or –focused does the author list include key community collaborators?)

Writing

• Is the content of the paper communicated adequately and clearly in the abstract?
• Do ideas flow logically and are appropriate terms used? (Note that some variation is expected and acceptable, especially when reviewing abstracts from non-native English speakers or that reflect regional dialects.)
• Is the title descriptive of the content? Will it attract attendees? (Note that we can suggest changes to improve the title.)

Guides