|
|
|
Print this article 
Scientific Program Committee Review of Abstracts—The Good and Not-So-Good
Each year the Scientific Program Committee (SPC) reviews more than 2,000 abstracts for poster and platform presentations for the Annual Meeting. Although a rather daunting task, the committee has organized this process over the years to make the review manageable. However, the committee continues to struggle with the content of some abstracts, particularly where there are minimal data presented or, as in some cases, when the abstract appears to be an “advertisement” for a product or service better suited for presentation at an exhibitor’s booth. In response to feedback provided to us from the membership regarding what constitutes an acceptable abstract, we have put together some practical concepts as a means to assist in the preparation of your abstracts. Detailed information regarding the submission of abstracts, including an FAQ, and instructions can be found on the SOT 2010 Annual Meeting Web site.
For abstracts that describe a toxicological finding, it is imperative that the abstract identify the compound or compound class. The SPC recognizes the proprietary nature of compounds, but at a minimum, the class of compounds needs to be included in the abstract. In addition, a brief description of the purpose and methods needs to be described, and data provided to support a conclusion. The SPC receives dozens of abstracts where no data are included in the abstract and we struggle with accepting these abstracts. In addition to the issues highlighted above, many of the abstracts submitted contain references. Although this information is important to include in the poster presentation or platform discussion, references should not be included in the body of the abstract. Finally, when describing your research or assessment, refrain from using phrases such as "will be presented” or “will be discussed.” For abstracts that describe a policy issue, provide a description of that issue and its application to human or environmental health.
To provide you with additional guidance for preparing your abstract, the top 10 reasons used by the SPC to reject an abstract (shades of David Letterman!) are listed below (numbers are reflective of the number of rejections for the SOT 2009 Annual Meeting).
Reason #10—Abstract raises ethical questions that need to be resolved—None! (a good thing)
Reason #9—Abstract does not identify substance being investigated—1
Reason #8—Abstract is one of several emanating from the same study—3
Reason #7—Work is fundamentally sound, but relevance to toxicology uncertain—3
Reason #6—Experimental design and/or interpretation flawed—9
Reason #5—Abstract is poorly written—15
Reason #4—Abstract presents a review of published literature—18
Reason #3—Abstract reports no new data, interpretations, or applications—19
Reason #2—Abstract promotes a commercial product—29
And finally, the number 1 reason for rejecting an abstract:
Reason #1—Abstract describes work in progress with no results—46
Please keep in mind that the list is only a guide. If the unfortunate circumstance of rejecting a submission arises, the SPC will provide specific input to the submitter.
So, as you prepare an abstract for the 2010 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, keep in mind the SOT Top 10 List for rejecting an abstract. Let’s make the scientific quality of the meeting all the better!
|
