Crafting and Submitting Your Abstract
The Scientific Program Committee (SPC) reviews each abstract that is submitted and bases acceptance or rejection on specific criteria. Review this section carefully to better understand that criteria and to gain tips for successfully completing an abstract submission.
Required Content and Submission Format
In previous years, the SPC noticed that most rejected abstracts fail to include at least one of four main elements. To help ensure that applicants are including the correct content in their abstracts—especially trainees submitting their first abstract—the SPC updated the application form by breaking the abstract entry into the four required pieces of information. Your abstract length in total—when combining the character count from each required element/box—should be 8,000 characters or less, not including spaces. Please note that your abstract title, the author block (author names, institutions, city, state, country), and the abstract section headers explained below are included in the 8,000 maximum character count.
Sample abstract that contains text appropriate for each section
The first few sentences of your abstract will go in the “Background and Purpose” box of the submission form and should describe why you embarked on this work and your overall purpose or objective.
The next few sentences of your abstract will go in the “Methods” box and will provide a description of how your research was done.
Arguably the most important portion of your abstract are the sentences conveying your results. This means data! If your study is not the kind to produce data, clearly summarize the results and findings. Do not include figures, tables, or chemical structures and avoid nonstandard acronyms.
The final sentences of your abstract should convey the impact or significance of your work to the field of toxicology.
Abstracts for Non-laboratory or Non-field Studies
In the situations of studies that do not describe laboratory or field experiments, such as reports on educational, ethics, legal, or social initiatives, authors should:
- Describe the research or assessment approach instead of experimental procedures.
- Summarize the study’s results or findings explicitly.
- Clearly articulate the implications for stakeholders.
In addition, abstracts describing new initiatives or science policy in the regulatory community must clearly articulate the potential impact on the practice of toxicology and/or risk assessment. Care should be taken to clearly distinguish between statements based on documented facts versus opinions.
Literature surveys or reviews and background materials, a simple overview, or unstructured assessments of a topic, without novel advances in either approach or interpretation of a topic that leads to new conclusions, are not acceptable. However, systematic reviews and/or advances in systematic review methods are acceptable abstract submissions.
Pitfalls to Avoid
Abstract reviewers first ensure that a submitted abstract clearly describes the background and purpose of the work, the methods used, the results obtained, and the conclusions drawn. From there, the reviewer assesses the quality of this information, and abstracts can be rejected for one of these reasons:
General Concerns
- The abstract raises ethical questions that need to be resolved before it can be accepted.
- The writing style is insufficient to clearly describe the goals, approach, outcome, and/or significance of the study.
- The abstract describes/promotes a commercial project without providing substantive scientific data/results.
Scientific Concerns
- The experimental design and/or interpretation appears to be flawed or biased.
- The abstract lacks sufficient data or results, or the abstract is a commentary without sufficient data or evidence.
- The abstract is one of several emanating from a single study and cannot stand alone.
- The abstract fails to identify substance(s) being investigated, provide sufficient information on characterization of substance(s), or provide sufficient information on numbers of substances being investigated (in screening projects).
- The abstract represents a review of published literature without a clearly identified novel interpretation or application, nor sufficient new data or knowledge.
- The work appears fundamentally sound, but it is unclear in its connection and/or relevance to toxicology.
Additional Abstract Development Tips
Additionally, authors should consider the following when developing the abstract:
- Test compounds utilized in the study should be identified in the abstract as much as possible. In cases where the length of the proper chemical name precludes its use, a manufacturer’s identification number, etc., may be acceptable, provided the structure and chemical identity of the compound are included in the presentation. Abstracts may not be accepted if the authors are unable to disclose the chemical identity of the compound(s) used in the study.
- It can be challenging to describe results of “big data” studies within the confines of a 8,000-character abstract. Instead, include specific examples of findings to help meet the requirement for description of data.
- All animal experimentation must be carried out in accordance with the Society’s Guiding Principles in the Use of Animals in Toxicology.
- All abstracts submitted with human testing require that IRB protocol has been followed and approval obtained. References are not required in the body of the abstract, but the Scientific Program Committee may request authors to provide the IRB protocol followed.