Guidelines for Review and Selection of Abstracts
Abstract Review Process
1. All abstracts submitted to the Annual Conference will be evaluated by iThenticate (or similar) software in an effort to verify the originality of the work. The software package is used to verify content has not been plagiarized (including self-plagiarism) and cross-references published matter against the submission.
1.1 Submissions with iThenticate scores of 40% or greater will be subject to review by the CME Director and Annual Conference Program Chair for the Annual Conference. The author will be sent a warning letter and will be requested to advise the appropriate parties as to how the material differs from previously published or presented matter.
1.2 Submissions with iThenticate scores of 75% or greater will not be considered for presentation at the Annual Conference or publication, unless the author can demonstrate that the material submitted has not, in fact, been previously published, and has not been previously presented.
2. The CME Director will review iThenticate results, and provide feedback on those abstracts scoring 40% or greater as per item "1.1." above. Abstracts that meet acceptable iThenticate criteria are forwarded to the Program Chairpersons for the next review step.
3. The Program Chairperson(s) perform(s) an initial review of all ASLMS Program abstract submissions that have been approved via the iThenticate process and CME Director review. The Program Chairperson(s) may at his/her discretion, re-categorize the abstracts, suggest consideration for ePoster, or suggest rejection/editing. Any suggestions are then forwarded to the Section Chairperson(s) for the next level of review.
4. The Section Chairperson(s) performs a final review of all approved abstracts and determines whether to accept, reject (with clear reasoning provided), suggest for ePoster, or suggest for consideration in a different category. The Section Chairperson(s) organizes accepted abstracts by common topics and creates a session schedule of selected abstracts for presentation at the Annual Conference.
** Note: If upon review, an abstract is suggested for a category other than the original category to which the author submitted under, the author will be subsequently notified and allowed the first right of refusal for category change. The author will also be informed that if he/she declines the abstract category change, the abstract may not be accepted.
Given the brevity of abstracts, the Program and Section Chairpersons realize that the detail level obtained through this process cannot achieve the level of a full article in a peer-reviewed journal. However, the spirit of this Annual Conference is that full disclosure (regarding conflicts of interest as well as details in methodology) will be expected and must be provided at the time of presentation. Abstracts that cannot meet these requirements due to intellectual property concerns, or that withhold vital methodology specifics do not represent the spirit and intent of the Annual Conference and should not be submitted as they do not meet the criteria for acceptance.
Guidelines and Considerations for All Abstracts
ORIGINAL AND NOVEL CONTENT
- Abstracts must not have been published or presented previously (clinical series updates are an exception to this stipulation). ASLMS will process all abstracts via the iThenticate software systems to validate originality.
QUALITY DATA AND EVIDENCE
- All scientific research referred to, reported on, or used in the abstract must conform to the generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection, and analysis. Selection of abstracts for presentation will be limited to those abstracts that report already collected data.
- Abstracts should feature category-specific data with the expectation of full disclosure regarding methods and materials.
- Abstracts must contain tangible factual information and should accurately reflect work that has actually been performed. Statements such as "results will be discussed' are unacceptable.
- The number of patients in the study will be taken into consideration (20 minimum). Scientific, well-designed studies are given preference over anecdotal findings or single experiment or case. With rare exception, abstracts that present a single or a small number of cases should not be accepted for paper presentation, but may be appropriate for ePoster consideration.
- Recommendations in the abstract involving clinical medicine must be based on evidence that is accepted within the profession of medicine as adequate justification for their indications and contraindications in the care of patients.
- The abstract must not present recommendations, treatment, or manners of practicing medicine that are not within the definitions as noted above, are known to have risks or dangers that outweigh the benefits, or are known to be ineffective in the treatment of patients.
AVOID BIAS AND COMMERCIALISM
- The purpose of our conference is to disseminate accurate, balanced and objective information regarding lasers, other optical sources and related technologies in medicine and surgery. This purpose is best served by including presentations that are varied in terms of topics and presenters.
- Abstracts must be of high quality and be presented with no bias toward a specific company(ies).
AUTHOR PRESENTATION LIMIT
- Each author of an abstract submitted to ASLMS must have made a significant contribution to the research and must assume responsibility for the content of the abstract.
- The number of abstracts submitted by an individual and/or institution will be taken into consideration. In order to provide diversity of input, we discourage any one author making more than two (2) presentations in a session. The other submissions could be considered for the ePoster session.
- Full disclosure of any and all financial relationships with eligible and ineligible entities for the past 24 months is required of ALL authors and co-authors prior to abstract consideration. Authors who do not submit disclosure information by the required deadline will first be notified with a request to submit immediately. If the notified author or co-author does not comply, the presenting author has the discretion to either remove the non-complying author(s) name from the abstract or withdraw the abstract from consideration.
Additional Guidelines and Considerations for Scientific Abstracts
Submitted abstracts must contain the following elements:
- Clear research problem and/or translational potential based on scientific rationale that is hypothesis driven.
- Appropriate and clearly explained techniques with creative research or common techniques with a “novel issues and questions" approach.
- Clearly described number of experiments/animals with clearly defined measures such as: use of controls, bioassays, behavioral tests, data analysis/statistical analysis procedures, specific device and/or treatment parameters, and other measures.
- Clearly presented results with demonstrated significance presented as quantitative data with proper statistical information such as standard deviation (SD), standard error of mean (SEM), n- and p-values and the relationship of the hypothesis and the results addressed.
- Conclusions should accurately reflect the results, address the hypothesis and are placed in a broader context with discussion of the translational potential of the research.
Additional Guidelines and Considerations for Early Career Case Studies
- All Residents, Fellows, Student and Early Career authors should submit their abstracts under one of the indicated main session categories.
- Abstracts will be reviewed for inclusion within the main session first. Abstracts not accepted to the main session will be referred for a secondary review for inclusion within an Early Career session or referred to ePoster.
DEGREE OF NOVELTY REQUIRED
- All clinical and research topics pertaining to lasers and energy devices in any specialty are welcome.
- Novelty and quality research will be a priority for acceptance to a main session. If referred to the Early Career abstract session, abstracts should be interesting and educational for the Early Career audience.
- Case reports, “how I do it”, optimal treatment technique explications, clinical pearls, discussions of adverse events and their management, and appropriate editorials and novel technologies or diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, will be considered.
MULTIPLE SUBMISSIONS FROM THE SAME AUTHORS OR INSTITUTIONS
- While the same resident/fellow may be a co-author on multiple abstracts in the resident/fellow session, we ask that each resident/fellow serve as a presenter only once (i.e., be a subordinate or non-presenting author on other submissions.
- Multiple submissions from different trainees in the same training program are welcome, and will be considered, and the submission of multiple abstracts from a program will not decrease the likelihood of acceptance of a particular abstract. That is, the goal is to have as many resident/fellow presenters as possible, and not to limit presentations to any specific number per program.
NEED FOR SUBSTANTIAL RESIDENT/TRAINEE CONTRIBUTION
- Submitted abstracts must be the product of significant work by the presenting resident or fellow. Work is defined to include planning, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, and writing.
- At least half of the work of producing the abstract must have been performed by residents and fellows, with the preponderance of this 50% by the presenter. While this criterion is necessarily vague, we ask that submitters respect its spirit.
INCLUSION OF MONITORING SENIOR AUTHORS
- To ensure adequate vetting and quality control, we ask that each abstract submission include at least one author who is a faculty member at the relevant training program, who has had substantial oversight over the abstract preparation process and has reviewed the final product before submission.
- The monitoring senior author should be identified during abstract submission.
Additional Guidelines and Considerations for Nursing/Allied Health Case Studies
- Abstracts should be study/research focused, following the same rules/guidelines as standard abstract submissions.
- Case Study submissions may be about new procedures, care of patients, or "how we do this in our office" type situations.