Preparing and Submitting Abstracts
Aims and Interests
The Congress will provide a forum for the presentation and discussion of new research into the quality and credibility of peer review and scientific publication, to establish the evidence base on which scientists can improve the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scientific research. Suitable abstracts will report studies into the processes used by researchers, authors, editors, peer reviewers, publishers, funders, universities, and other stakeholders to improve the conduct, reporting, quality, integrity, and dissemination of scientific research and scholarly commentary. Suitable topics include any aspect of editorial and funding peer review, scientific and scholarly publication, research and reporting practices, identification and management of biases, transparency, reproducibility, access, publication and dissemination metrics, identification and management of threats to the integrity of science, and advances in information exchange, covering all disciplines of science, including (but not limited to) biomedicine, health science, applied science, basic science, physical and chemical sciences, psychology, computer science, engineering, economics, social science, and humanities, will be considered.
Abstracts describing narrative reviews, recommendations, and opinion will not be considered.
Abstracts that report new research and findings, that build on previous knowledge and test or evaluate processes, policies, or interventions with generalizable results (eg, prospective multiyear trials and controlled studies from collaborations among researchers, journals, publishers, funders, and information disseminators) will be given priority. Observational studies, systematic reviews, modelling studies, bibliometric analyses, surveys, and other research designs are also eligible.
Sponsored Scholar Opportunities
Limited opportunities for scholars with demonstrated need (primarily from resource-poor countries) to apply for funding assistance to attend the Congress will be available. For more information, contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Efforts to manage or eliminate bias in research methods, conduct and reporting of research, and interpretation of evidence
- Publication and reporting bias
- Bias on the part of researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, funders, commentators, and consumers of scientific information
Editorial and Peer Review Decision Making and Responsibilities
- Assessment and testing of models of peer review and editorial decision-making and workflows used by journals, publishers, funders, and research disseminators
- Evaluations of the quality, validity, and practicality of peer review and editorial decision-making
- Quality assurance for reviewers, editors, and funders
- Editorial policies and responsibilities
- Editorial freedom and integrity
- Peer review of grant proposals
Research and Publication Ethics
- Ethical concerns for researchers, authors, reviewers, editors, publishers, and funders
- Authorship, contributorship, accountability, and responsibility for published material
- Conflicts of interest
- Research and publication misconduct
- Ethical review and approval of studies
- Effects of funding and sponsorship on research and publication
- Influence of external stakeholders: funders, journal owners, advertisers/sponsors, policy makers, libraries, legal representatives, and the news media
Improving the Quality of Scientific Reporting, Reproducibility, and Access
- Effectiveness of guidelines and standards designed to improve the quality of scientific reporting and publication
- Evaluations of the quality of published information
- Data sharing, transparency, reliability, and access
- Research reproducibility
- Innovations to improve appropriate use of methods and statistics
- Assessment of artificial intelligence and other tools to improve the quality of research reporting
- Innovations to improve data and scientific display
- Quality and reliability of data presentation and scientific images
- Assessment of use and quality of multimedia to augment research reporting
- Quality and effectiveness of new formats for scientific articles
Models for Peer Review and Scientific Publication
- Single-blind, double-blind, collaborative, and open peer review
- Open and public access
- Preprints and prepublication posting and release of information
- Reproducibility checks
- Preregistration of research
- Postpublication review, communications, and influence
- Use and effects of social media
- Changes in readership and usage of peer-reviewed published content
- Quality and effects of scientific information in multimedia and new media
- Quality, use, and effects of publication and performance metrics and usage statistics
- Quality and influence of advertising and sponsored publication
- Quality and effectiveness of content tagging, markup, and linking
- Use of assisted artificial intelligence and software to improve editorial review and peer review
- Threats to scientific publication (eg, opportunistic, predatory, and pirate publishing; fake peer review; economic or market disruptions)
- The future of scientific publication
Dissemination of Scientific and Scholarly Information
- Methods for improving the quality, efficiency, and equitable distribution of scientific information
- Use of novel mechanisms, formats, and platforms to disseminate science
- New technologies that affect the quality, integrity, evaluation, dissemination, and access of scientific information
- Funding and reward systems as they relate to science and scientific publication
- Comparisons of and lessons from various scientific disciplines
- Mapping of scientific methods and reporting practices and of meta-research across disciplines
- Study of measures of scientific impact (bibliometrics and alternative metrics)
Abstract Format and Content
Abstracts should be prepared in Word and structured using the headings and sections for Objective, Design, Results, and Conclusions and should address the relevant items listed in each section below. The Objective and Conclusions sections should be very brief. The majority of the Abstract should be focused on Methods and Results. Abstracts that do not follow these recommendations will not be considered.
- Concise statement of the study question or hypothesis
- Include recognition of prior related research
- Description of how the hypothesis was tested or study question addressed
- Study type (eg cohort study, survey, randomized trial)
- Dates of study/analysis
- Sample or data source(s)
- Sample or data selection procedures
- Inclusion/exclusion criteria
- Intervention or exposure
- Main outcomes and measurements
- Methods of analyses
- Methods used to control for potential confounding/bias
- Description of what was found, with specific data including sample size
- Provide absolute numbers and percentages (do not provide percentages alone)
- Provide numerators and denominators and response/participation rates, as appropriate
- Present numerical results (eg, absolute numbers, proportions, rates, ratios, or differences) with appropriate indicators of uncertainty, such as 95% CIs
- For baseline data and descriptive studies, use means and standard deviations (SDs) for normally distributed data and medians and ranges or interquartile ranges (IQRs) for data that are not normally distributed
- Avoid reporting only P values, or basing conclusions exclusively on P values, which fail to convey important quantitative information
- When presenting P values, they should be exact and expressed to 2 digits to the right of the decimal point, or to 3 digits if <.01.
- A single, small table or figure displaying the main results may be cited. This object should be placed after the abstract. See additional guidance below.
- Brief statement of conclusions, limiting generalization to the study sample or data source
Guidance for Tables and Figures
Only 1 small Table or Figure is permitted per abstract.
- Format: Word or Excel
- Place the table after the abstract
- Include a short descriptive title
- When presenting percentages, include numbers (numerator and denominator).
- Include statistical variability where applicable (eg, mean [SD], median [IQR], OR [95% CI]).
- Use superscript letters (a, b, c) to mark footnotes and be sure each footnote in the table has a corresponding note (and vice versa).
- List abbreviations in the footnote section and explain any empty cells.
- Tables should be single-spaced and in a 10- or 12-point font (do not shrink the point size to fit the table onto the page).
- Avoid complex composite or multipart figures.
- Provide a short descriptive title and legend.
- Do not use pie charts, 3-D graphs, and stacked bar charts as these are not appropriate for accurate statistical presentation of data and should be revised to another figure type or converted to a table.
- For initial abstract review, the figure may be embedded at the end of the abstract file and must be of sufficient quality for editorial assessment and peer review.
- Acceptable figure file formats for initial submission: .ai, .bmp, .docx, .emf, .eps, .jpg, .pdf, .ppt, .psd, .tif, .wmf, .xls
- If an abstract is requested to be revised or accepted, authors will be asked to provide figures that meet the following final requirements.
Figure Requirements for Final Abstracts
- All symbols, indicators (including error bars), line styles, colors, and abbreviations should be defined in a legend.
- Each axis on a statistical graph must have a label and units of measure should be labeled.
- Error bars should be included in both directions, unless only 1-sided variability was calculated.
- Values for ratio data—odds ratios, relative risks, hazard ratios—should be plotted on a log scale. Values for ratio data should not be log transformed.
- For footnotes, use letters (a, b, c, etc) not symbols.
- Statistical Graphs: Provide a graph output directly from the software used to create it in an editable VECTOR file format, such as .wmf or .eps, or as an Excel graph, if created in Excel. If you provide .pdf files, be sure that these are in VECTOR file formal, not Raster file format. Raster (picture) files, such as .jpg or .tif, output directly or embedded in vector files, are not acceptable. All statistical graphs in accepted manuscripts are recreated in-house.
- Acceptable figure file formats for revision and acceptance: .ai, .emf, .eps, .pdf, .wmf, .xls
Abstracts should specify study design, such as randomized controlled trials; cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, comparative-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and quality improvement studies; meta-analyses; systematic reviews without meta-analysis; modeling studies; surveys; and qualitative analysis. Authors will be asked to identify their study type in the abstract submission system. Studies should follow the basic reporting requirements of the EQUATOR Network. Case reports and nonresearch will not be considered.
Abstracts should be structured using the following headings and sections:
Objective: Concise statement of the study question or hypothesis.
Design: Description of how the hypothesis was tested or study question addressed. Include study type; dates of study/analysis; sample or data source; sample or data selection procedures; inclusion/exclusion criteria; intervention, exposure, or assessment; methods of analyses; and methods used to control for potential confounding/bias.
Results: Description of what was found, with specific data. Provide absolute numbers and percentages (do not provide percentages alone). Provide numerators and denominators and response/participation rates, as appropriate. Quantify findings and present them with appropriate indicators of measurement error or uncertainty, such as 95% CIs, whenever possible. Avoid relying solely on statistical hypothesis testing, such as the use of P values alone. A single, small table or figure displaying the main results may be included.
Conclusions: Brief statement of conclusions, limiting generalization to the study sample or data source. One author must be identified as the corresponding author. Provide a complete name, mailing address, telephone number, and e-mail address for the corresponding author. Submit complete names, affiliations, and e-mail addresses for all coauthors. Corresponding authors will be notified of decisions by the end of April 2017.
Submitting the Abstract
Submit between December 1, 2021 and January 15, 2022. The link to the abstract submission site will be available on December 1, 2021.
Corresponding authors will be notified of decisions by the end of April 2022.