Skip links and keyboard navigation

Criteria and guidelines

Abstract judging criteria

Judging of the abstracts was conducted by the Research Excellence Awards subcommittee. Abstracts were judged by either basic or clinical researchers on the basis of excellence in three criteria

Abstract quality

The abstract was to succinctly portray the background, rationale, methodological approach, key findings and significance of the research. The abstract needed to appeal to an audience including clinical and scientific researchers who may not be familiar with the field of research.

Scientific quality

The research presented was to be of a high quality conducted with the most appropriate and advanced techniques. The analysis of the data was to be thoroughly and rigorously conducted.

Scientific and clinical significance

The clinical or scientific significance and impact on the field was to be clearly portrayed. The key findings of the study was to be supported by the evidence presented. The outcomes was to be interpreted in the context of the state of development in the research field.

Judging of abstracts took into account outstanding qualities in each criterion. Equal weighting of these qualities applied.

Presentation judging criteria

Judging of oral and poster presentations took into account excellence in the three abstract judging criterions in addition to presentation criteria. Judging was conducted by an esteemed panel of research leaders in multiple fields.

Delivery and communication quality

The presentation needed to appeal to an intelligent but non-specialist audience, follow a logical sequence, engage and educate the audience.

Timing

The presentation need to adhere to the lightning talk guidelines: 12 slides, 20 seconds each slide—total 4 minutes.

Abstract submission guidelines

Submitted abstracts were to be 300 words with no bullet points.

Abstracts closed on Friday 9 June 2017.

Last updated 14 August 2017
Last reviewed 2 May 2017