Abstract Review Submission Test RM_StatsEmail *First NameLast NameDear reviewer, - If you have any queries about completing the review, please write to scientific@isa2019madrid.com. - Abstract submission guidelines can be viewed here. - The review process requires you to: 1. Evaluate the overall suitability of the abstract for presentation at ISA2019, based on 3 criteria: - Relevance to ISA2019 - Adherence to submission guidelines (see page 4) - The standard of English 2. If the abstract is empirical research or a systematic review: Rate the abstract on the following five categories. The base standard for evaluation is the same as publication in a scientific journal. - The clarity and scientific coherence of the background/purpose of the study - The appropriateness and quality of the methodology employed - The clarity and scientific coherence of the results and findings - The soundness of the conclusions - The innovativeness and originality of the study 3. If the abstract is NOT empirical research or a systematic review, i.e. a theory proposal or other contribution (personal or professional experiences): Rate the abstract on the following four categories. The base standard for evaluation is the same as publication in a scientific journal. - The clarity and coherence of the introduction to the abstract - The clarity and conceptual coherence of the description of the theory or activity - The clarity and coherence of the summary - The innovativeness and originality of the proposal/ activity 4. Make a recommendation to the scientific committee Please follow the instructions to review the submitted abstract. Step 1. Please enter the abstract ID number and the Abstract title (copy and paste from the abstract review pdf)Abstract ID number *Abstract title *Step 2. Suitability of the abstract for presentation at ISA2019 MadridBased on the following criteria, specify if the abstract is suitable for presentation at ISA2019. If you select “no” to any of the 3 criteria the abstract will be rejected. Criteria 1. Is the abstract relevant to ISA2019? The abstract must address pregnancy loss or perinatal mortality prevention or death (including miscarriage, stillbirth, intrapartum death, termination of pregnancy for medical reasons and neonatal death). Relevant topics include mortality prevention, risk factors and cause of perinatal death, investigation of the cause of perinatal death, any aspect of care of the baby or parents related to clinical (diagnosis, birth, lactation, neonatal care) or bereavement care (postpartum rituals, memory objects, disposition of the body/remains), neonatal care, follow-up care, community based care and support groups, subsequent pregnancy and perinatal grief. If you are unsure that the topic is relevant to the conference choose the “Yes“ option and write a note in the “comments” section at the end. Does the abstract address a topic that is relevant to ISA2019? * Yes No Criteria 2. Does the format and structure of the abstract meet submission guideline criteria? The submission guideline criteria specify that all abstracts must have a clearly identifiable structure or close approximation to the following: Empirical research: Background/objectives, Methods, Results/findings and Discussion/Conclusion Non-empirical research: Introduction, Description and Summary. If the abstract does not have an appropriate structure it can not be evaluated and should be rejected. If you are unsure choose the “Yes“ option and write a note in the “comments” section at the end. Does the structure and format of the abstract meet submission guidelines? * Yes No Criteria 3. Is the quality of the English of an acceptable standard? i.e. is the abstract clearly understandable at a technical language level? Being able to understand the abstract is of greater importance that grammar precision; take into account that not all authors maybe native English speakers. If the general quality of the English is too poor to be clear understood, i.e. you are unable to properly evaluate the abstract, choose “no”. If you are unsure choose the “Yes“ option and write a note in the “comments” section at the end. Is the quality of the English of an acceptable standard (i.e. is it understandable)? * Yes No Step 3. Choose the methodology of the abstract (see page one of the pdf) and complete the evaluationWhat methodology does the abstract employ? * Empirical research Theory proposal or other contribution Background: Rate the clarity and scientific coherence of the background/purpose of the study *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentMethods: Rate the appropriateness and quality of the methodology employed, based on the research objectives and scientific rigor *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentResults: Clarity and scientific coherence of the results and findings *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentConclusions: Rate the soundness of the conclusions based on the methodology, results, limitations and known evidence in the field of research *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentOriginality: Rate the innovativeness and originality of the study *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentIntroduction: Rate the clarity and coherence of the background/purpose of the abstract *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentDescription (main body): Rate the clarity and coherence of the theory, proposal or activity described: *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentSummary: Rate the clarity and coherence of the abstract summary *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentOriginality: Rate the innovativeness and originality of the theory, proposal or activity: *Select an option1 - Very poor2 - Poor3 - Average4 - Good5 - ExcellentStep 4. Appropriateness of the ethics statementAbstract submission guidelines state that each abstract must include details of: - Ethics approval by an institutional or regional board/committee and the corresponding approval number. - Steps taken to ensure subject safety and consent to participate. - If ethics approval wasn’t sought or waived (for example in the case of theory proposal, review or other contribution), the abstract should include a statement to this effect. According to the criteria outlined above, does the Abstract contain an adequate ethics statement? * Yes No Step 5. Make a recommendationNote: If you answered “No” to at least one of the three questions in Step 2 the abstract should be automatically rejected. Please make a recommendation to the Scientific Committee. In making a final decision, your recommendation will be taken into account along with that of the other reviewer. If the abstract has been submitted for “E-poster” the only options are “reject” or “recommend for poster/ E-poster”. Recommendation to the Scientfic Committee *Select an optionRecommend for “poster or E-poster presentation”Recommend for “oral presentation”Recommend for “rejection”Comments to the Scientific Committee (optional)Final step. Submit reviewSubmit (you can make no further changes) * Ready to submit Note: It looks like JavaScript is disabled in your browser. Some elements of this form may require JavaScript to work properly. If you have trouble submitting the form, try enabling JavaScript momentarily and resubmit. JavaScript settings are usually found in Browser Settings or Browser Developer menu.
