Stanford Medicine X 2016 peer reviewer instructions
Thanks for agreeing to be a reviewer for Stanford Medicine X 2016. The quality of our conference depends upon the peer review process to help identify the highest quality proposals for presentation. We are grateful to your service and realize your time is valuable. In recognition of your efforts, we will be pleased to provide a certificate of service as a reviewer for Stanford Medicine X 2016 upon completion of your duties.
How to review an abstract
- Title: Does the title accurately describe the content of the proposed presentation? Are there any spelling or grammatical errors?
- Track: After reading the abstract, did they submit to the correct track? Business track submissions should reflect concepts and practices that can be used to translate knowledge to new products, services and businesses. Implementation track submissions examine work that is being done to execute and realize change at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, or environmental levels. ePatient track submissions reflect work in patient engagement and projects with direct relevance and participation to patient communities. Research track submissions must test a scientific hypothesis and provide results with a report of statistical significance (e.g. p-value). Design track submission should reflect excellence, innovation, and potential or proven ability to improve the quality of health through design. If they didn’t submit to the correct track, please suggest the correct track in the review.
- Category: After reading the abstract, did they submit to the correct category? For instance, if they describe a workshop in their presentation proposal and selected Oral Presentation, please suggest the correct category in the review. In addition, if the submission isn’t suitable for oral presentation because the results are too preliminary or need further development, please consider suggesting submission to the poster category.
- Abstract: Please read the abstract carefully. Each type of abstract should be evaluated on the following criteria:
- Is a problem clearly described?
- What type of solutions are proposed, and is there sufficient detail to determine their suitability to solve the proposed problem(s)?
- Is the amount of jargon kept to a minimum. Where jargon is used, is it adequately described so that patients and non-technical readers could understand?
- Has the proposal addressed alternative viewpoints and solutions to the problem at hand?
- Is the presenter qualified to speak on the proposed topic?
- For panel submissions: Are the proposed panelists suitable for the proposed presentation? Do they have adequate experience and expertise in the content area? Have patients or ePatient delegates been included in panels when appropriate? Are there a minimum of three presenters in the panel proposal? If there are not at least three presenters in a panel, is there a stated reason why?
- For research track submissions: Have results been presented clearly and was a report of statistical significance (e.g. p-value) provided? Was the design of the study appropriate to answer the proposed hypothesis? Did the analysis of data appropriately account for possible study confounders and was the statistical analysis appropriate?
- For ePatient track submissions: Has there been inclusion, as much as feasibly possible, to include ePatient delegates in the proposed work or presentation? If not, why? If so, how?
- For business track submissions: Does the described presentation have interest to the business or entrepreneurial community? Is the presenter qualified to speak on the proposed topic? Are there alternative viewpoints that have not been considered in the proposal?
- For oral presentations: Is the proposed presentation best suited for an oral presentation? Might the work be presented in alternative format, such as poster presentation?
- For workshop presentations: Is the proposed workshop feasible in the allotted 90 minute timeframe? Has the author provided clear learning objectives and described in sufficient detail how they will be addressed in the interactive workshop format? Has the author adequately described why the proposal must be given in a workshop format and not other formats such as oral presentation or panel?
- Reviewer comments: Please enter any constructive feedback for improving the submission in the reviewer comments box. Please note the authors will receive these comments without your identity attached. Please do not include your identity in the reviewer comments box if you wish to remain an anonymous reviewer. If you wish to send private comments to Medicine X about an abstract, please email us at email@example.com.
Scoring an Abstract
- Assign a numerical score: After considering all the points above, you will be asked to assign a numerical score to the abstract. The anchors of the scale are 1 = Absolutely reject without further consideration to 10 = Absolutely accept without further consideration or revision. Please note in the 2014 review cycle, 6 abstracts received a score
- Assign a recommended action: Accept – select this option if you wish to recommend the presentation be accepted without further revision. Revise – select this option if you believe that the proposed presentation has potential to be recommended for acceptance with some further minor revisions. Given the short review process for Medicine X, proposals requiring major revisions should be recommended for rejection. Reject – select this option if you believe that the proposed abstract does not merit presentation at Medicine X. Please note that oral presentations can be reclassified in the poster track and this is a valid option for abstracts that hold promise, but require major revisions. Reject should be considered if the proposal doesn’t have adequate detail to determine suitability for presentation or does not meet the scoring criteria above.
- Submit: Once you have completed reviewer comments and scoring, you may submit it by clicking the “Submit Review” button. Please note you may not change a review once it is submitted.