Guidelines for Abstract Review Process
The abstract is a scientific document of original work and requires peer review to meet standards required for dissemination. Your work as a reviewer is highly valued. Your expertise in scrutinizing abstracts to ensure their quality and appropriateness is much appreciated.
In reviewing the abstracts, you need to note, assess, and ensure the following:
ANC X 2026 Abstract Review Evaluation Form
| Reviewer’s Name : | |||
| Abstract N° | |||
| Title: | |||
| Presenting author. | |||
| Abstract Review | Score | Comments | |
| 3 = Excellent | 1 = Fair | ||
| 2 = Good | 0 = Poor | ||
| 1. Relevance and word Limit (Max 300): How relevant is the abstract to the conference and does the abstract fall within the prescribed word limit? | |||
| 2. Title, Background and objectives: Are the title, background and objectives well presented, clear and sound? | |||
| 3. Originality: Is the work being presented novel? Does it provide new insights into existing problems or issues? Has the work been previously presented in the same format elsewhere, and if so, why is it being presented again? | |||
| 4. Structure: Does the abstract follow the format provided in the instructions to authors? Has it got a clear structure including title, background, aims/objectives, methodology/study design, results, conclusion and keywords? | |||
| 5. If the type of study does not lend itself to the above, is the structure logical, clear and sound? | |||
| 6. Does the content of the abstract reflect the title and is the language (grammar and comprehension) good and appropriate?
|
|||
| 7. Methods / Study Design: Are these clearly presented, and the methods sufficiently described including sampling and subject recruitment (where applicable)? | |||
| 8. Data Collection, collation and analysis: How sound are the methods for collecting and analyzing data? Are the methods of data analysis clear and appropriate? | |||
| 9. Results: How well have these been presented? Is it concise, clear, logical, informative and accurate? | |||
| 10. Conclusion: How sound are the deductions and conclusions from the results? Are they justified and supported by the results presented? | |||
| Total Score (/30) | |||
| Response
1 = Oral 2 = Poster 3 = Discarded fully |
|||
| Final Decision | |||
Each criterion will be given a score between 0 and 3 as follows:
• 0 = poor
• 1 = satisfactory
• 2 = good
• 3 = fully meets criteria
- Max score 30 = 100%
- Min score 0 = 0%
Note to Reviewers
Acceptance or rejection of an abstract will be based on their overall score. The minimum score required for acceptance is 18 points (or 60%). Abstracts scoring ≥24 (≥80%) will be allocated to oral presentation until the slots are filled or unless the author prefers a poster presentation. All other eligible abstracts will be accepted for Poster presentations.
For abstracts receiving between 15.0 (50% and 17.9 (59%) points, authors may be given a timeframe within which to improve and re-submit their abstracts for assessment.