The Annual Meeting Program Committee (AMPC) seeks high-quality abstracts that contain a clear statement of hypothesis, an explanation of methods, a report of data that unequivocally test the hypothesis and a brief discussion of their implications. Spelling and grammar must be correct.
The Annual Meeting Program Committee has established the following criteria to determine the rejection of abstracts. The decision of the AMPC is final.
1.1 There is concern in the area of Animals as per the Statement for the Use of Animals in Ophthalmic and Visual Research.
1.2 There is concern in the area of Human Subjects as per the Helsinki Declaration or other ethics standards.
1.3 The research is not consistent with ARVO's Statement on Diversity and Open Scientific Exchange.
1.4 The abstract reports a clinical trial that does not comply with the ARVO Statement on Registering Clinical Trials.
2.1 There is concern about conflict of interest due to a lack of full disclosure of all relevant commercial relationships.
2.2 Predominantly commercial abstracts will be rejected unless they report new scientific research developments.
3.1 The abstract represents data and conclusions that have already been published.
3.2 The abstract represents data and conclusions that were presented previously at ARVO by the same group of investigators.
3.3 The abstract represents data and conclusions that are redundant with abstracts submitted in the same year by the same group of investigators.
4.1 The study uses methods that could not have led to the results reported.
4.2 The results that are reported do not support the conclusions.
4.3 The results are presented as figures or tables alone. Figures cannot be used as a substitute for the description of the results.
4.4 There is no control group or the control group is inappropriate.
4.5 The study has sample sizes that are insufficient to address the research question(s).
4.6 Abstracts of single case reports or case series will be rejected unless they provide data that significantly advance or challenge current understanding of the pathophysiology, genetics, or management of a condition.
4.7 Abstracts reporting literature reviews, meta-analyses or systematic reviews will be rejected unless the abstract includes a valid study design, demonstrable independence of sample sets, results from secondary analysis using generally accepted statistical methods to test a hypothesis and reports new conclusions that add value to the field.
5.0 Abstract results are of limited scientific value to advance the understanding or advancement of the field.
6.0 The abstract was reviewed and scored by the Annual Meeting Program Committee through a peer review process. The aggregate score did not achieve the benchmark established by the Committee.
7.0 Abstract format does not follow ARVO guidelines
8.0 The First Author did not present his/her accepted abstract in the previous year, and/or did not follow the ARVO withdrawal/replacement speaker policy. The current year's abstract from this First Author will be automatically rejected.