Review Criteria for the selection of abstracts for the Ocean Optics conference
Introduction
Abstracts submitted for Ocean Optics are traditionally reviewed by the organizing committee. This year, the committee has decided to standardize and publicize the review procedure. Authors are invited to indicate whether they would like to give oral or poster presentations, but it is expected that all oral presentations will be accompanied by a poster. Since there are a limited number of slots available, and it is necessary to maintain a degree of balance and interest in the program, we will be unable to accommodate some of the abstracts offered for oral presentation due to space limitations. These will be allocated to the relevant poster sessions. There is no assumption that abstracts accepted for oral presentations are of higher quality than those accepted as posters.
Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation criteria are explained below.
1. State of Completion (3 points)
The abstract shows substantial results indicating that the work has been, or is nearly completed.
2. Novelty (3 points)
The abstract shows innovative laboratory or data analysis techniques, or presents a new topic or application in ocean optics.
3. Advancement of field (3 points)
The abstract presents a significant contribution to the field.
4. Quality (3 points)
The abstract is well-written and organized. The scope of the work can be clearly understood.
5. Relevance (3 points)
The abstract addresses topical areas requested for the conference.
Minimum scores for acceptance will be determined by the committee after all scores are tallied.
Review Process
The committee will use a procedure similar to the one employed by the NASA Earth Science Directorate to evaluate large numbers of proposals. This process is fair and familiar to the committee members and to many in the community. Due to the limited numbers of slots for oral presentations, there is a slight difference in the procedure used to review abstracts submitted for oral presentations and poster sessions. However, the evaluation criteria are the same.
Abstracts submitted for oral presentations
1-Abstracts will be assigned to members of the planning committee based on expertise and areas of interest. Assignments will be made by the Co-chairs and will be blind. Neither the co-chairs or evaluators will know the identity of the authors.
2-Each abstract will be reviewed by at least three committee members.
3-After the period of evaluation, each committee member will nominate a predetermined number of abstracts that score highest in their evaluations. The number of abstracts to be nominated by each committee member will be determined by the number of slots for oral presentations.
4-The committee will give preference to the abstracts that receive multiple nominations. Final decisions by the committee will be based on scores, but will take program balance into account. The committee reserves the right to use other criteria.
5- Abstracts that cannot be granted an oral presentation due to the limited availability of slots will be allocated to poster sessions.
Abstracts submitted for poster sessions.
1-Abstracts will be assigned to members of the planning committee based on expertise and areas of interest. Assignments will be made by the Co-chairs and will be blind. Neither the co-chairs or evaluators will know the identity of the authors.
2-Each abstract will be reviewed by at least three committee members.
3-The committee will tally the scores and will discuss any significant discrepancies between committee member scores (e.g. where one committee member scores a 5 whereas the other two score 10 and 12).
4-Minimum scores for acceptance will be determined by the committee after all scores are tallied.
5- Abstracts submitted as posters that generate great interest from the committee may be invited to be presented in the oral sessions.
|
Total conference management by Lewis Conference Services International |
