Abstract review information

The abstract review process 

After submission of your abstract, a uniform and blinded review process will take place.  The first step in this process is to identify any abstracts that do not conform to the abstract submission criteria.  Any abstract that does not conform to the abstract submission criteria will not be reviewed.   

The goal is not to limit the number of presentations or posters but to ensure that all abstracts published meet the minimum professional standards and reflect good work. 

Your abstract will be allocated to reviewers who have identified expertise/knowledge of your abstract submission category and nominated area/s of Specialty Practice.  Abstract reviewers will review your abstract against the abstract review criteria below. 

The person responsible for submitting the abstract will be notified of the outcome of the abstract review process from Monday 28 August 2023. 

The most frequent reasons for abstract rejection are:

• Abstract contains identifiable information, e.g., hospital name, workplace, author name/s 
• Abstract does not use mandatory subheadings 
• Abstract contains spelling or grammatical errors
• Abstract is poorly written / not understandable 
• Abstract contains previously presented or published material 
• Abstract results presented are incomplete 
• Abstract does not clearly articulate the role of the pharmacist/pharmacy/pharmacy technician 

Abstract review criteria 

Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines) 

• Does the abstract adhere to the abstract submission guidelines?  This includes the use of correct subheadings. 
• Is the writing clear and organised to effectively communicate the findings? 

1	2	3	4
The abstract preparation guidelines have not been followed and/or the abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled, contains spelling or grammatical errors, and is difficult to comprehend.	The work outlined in the abstract is adequately described and minimally disorganised.  The language of the abstract is clear with minimal spelling or grammatical or errors.  The abstract preparation guidelines have partially been followed.	The work outlined in the abstract is described in general terms and the language of the abstract is clear with no spelling or grammatical errors.  All abstract preparation guidelines have been followed.	The abstract is clearly described, concise and well written using appropriate scientific language.  The abstract contains no spelling or grammatical errors.  All abstract preparation guidelines have been followed.

Criteria 2: Abstract purpose: Importance and relevance to pharmacy practice 

• To what extent does the abstract address a topic that is important? 
• To what degree does the work outlined in the abstract acknowledge, expand on, or introduce new concepts in pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines? 
• Is the work relevant to pharmacy practice?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Does not address a topic of importance OR relevance to pharmacy practice.	Addresses a topic of either minimal importance AND/OR relevance to pharmacy practice.	Addresses a topic of either some importance AND/OR relevance to pharmacy practice.	Addresses a topic of some importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice.  Acknowledges but does not expand on current practice.	Addresses a topic of significant importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice; OR somewhat expands current practice.	Addresses a topic of most importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice; OR greatly expands current practice.	Addresses a topic of utmost importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice OR introduces a new concept into practice.

Criteria 3: Abstract methodology (research and pharmacy practice abstracts) / reporting of the case (case reports): Strength and appropriateness  

• Is the research, pharmacy practice work, or reporting of the case clearly described? 
• Is the method reliable and valid for addressing the abstract aim/objective? 
• Has the impact of potential variable factors (e.g., selection bias, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinically relevant information) been addressed? 

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
The method/​reporting of the case is not described or appropriate.	The method/​reporting of the case is poorly described. The method/reporting of the case is not appropriate for addressing the aim/objective.	The method/​reporting of the case is adequately described. The method/reporting of the case is somewhat appropriate for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors not discussed.	The method/​reporting of the case is fully described. The method/reporting of the case is probably reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors partially discussed.	The method/​reporting of the case is fully described. The method/reporting of the case is probably reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors fully discussed and controlled for, as needed.	The method/​reporting of the case is well described. The method/reporting of the case is reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors fully discussed and controlled for, as needed.	The method/​reporting of the case is very clearly described. The method/reporting of the case is reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective.  Impact of potential variable factors fully discussed and controlled for, as needed.

Criteria 4: Abstract conclusions: Validity and impact/implications 

• Are the conclusions (evaluation/results and discussion) clearly stated and justified by the work outlined in abstract? 
• Are the results consistent with the aim (research and pharmacy practice) or do the results highlight existing literature on the topic (case reports) 
• Are the implications strong enough to impact pharmacy practice (e.g., in clinical practice, in future research) or responsible use of medicines (e.g., MUE)? 

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
Conclusions and implications not included. Does not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions present but not justified. Does not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions present and weakly supported. Provides knowledge but likely will not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions clearly stated and supported. Absent or weak implications. Provides knowledge but likely will not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions clearly stated and supported. Implications are weak. Provides knowledge that may impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions clearly stated and supported. Implications moderately appropriate. Provides knowledge that will likely impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.	Conclusions clearly stated and supported. Implications fully appropriate. Provides knowledge that most likely impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines.