Abstract Rejection Criteria

Print

Abstract Rejection Criteria

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.

2.1 There is concern about conflict of interest regarding commercial relationships 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.

3.0 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.

4.1 The abstract represents data and conclusions that have already been published.

4.2 The abstract represents data and conclusions that were presented previously at ARVO by the same investigator.

4.3 The abstract represents data and conclusions that were redundant with abstracts submitted in the same year by the same group of investigators.

5.0 Abstracts of single case reports or case series will be rejected unless they provide data that significantly advances or challenges the current understanding of the pathophysiology, new genetic information, or treatment of a condition.

6.1 The abstract contains insufficient data.

6.2 There is no or an inappropriate control group.

6.3 The study had sample sizes that were insufficient to address the research question.

6.4 The study used methods that could not have led to the results listed.

6.5 The results reported do not support the conclusions.

6.6 Abstract format does not follow ARVO guidelines.

6.7 Abstracts of literature reviews will be rejected.

7.0 Abstract results are of limited scientific value to advance the understanding or advancement of the field.

8.0 The abstract was reviewed and scored by the Program Committee through a peer review process. The aggregate score did not achieve the benchmark established by the Program Committee.

9.0 The abstract reports on a clinical trial that was not registered and failed to comply with the ARVO Statement on Registering Clinical Trials.