SAPC ASM presentation abstract peer review criteria

These points will be considered by reviewers when scoring presentation abstracts

Soundness of the scholarship

Aim and rationale for the study: 

  • Does the abstract describe a clear question or problem that is being tackled? Is the aim clearly articulated?

Justification of the approach

  • Does the abstract justify the approach (method) used to tackle the problem: adequately and in sufficient detail?

Application of the approach

  • Does the abstract demonstrate appropriate and rigorous application of the methods to produce trustworthy outputs?

Presentation of results/findings

  • Does the abstract clearly describe the outcomes (or potential/ anticipated outcomes) of the work? Are the outcomes credible in light of the described aim/approach/application? Has the author chosen an appropriate format – poster or oral – for their work?

Importance of the scholarship

  • Is the topic APPROPRIATE for an SAPC audience?
  • Will the topic matter to an SAPC audience?:
  • Is it likely to generate useful and interesting debate at the conference?
  • Is the topic IMPORTANT FOR THE WIDER PC COMMUNITY? Is it likely to engage a wider audience (clinical, practice, policy, audience). Will the work impact on/influence clinical practice/education/policy/methodology?

The SAPC Annual Conference aims to:

  • Showcase new, emerging and best scholarship (education, research and innovation) in primary care
  • Provide PC academics with opportunities to present, debate and share their work
  • Support PC academics at all stages of their career to develop their experience and skills in engaging with audiences to maximise the impact of their work and scholarship
  • Engage an audience from across the primary care practice and policy community

 

Our peer review process aims to select a strong programme of abstracts to support these aims, to register for the events and so make for a lively and informative meeting. 

The conference organisers therefore aim to prioritise abstracts which offer:

  • Sound scholarship: science, education and/or innovation
  • Thoughtful presentation of ideas that recognise the needs of the APC and PC communities

We welcome interesting and well-conducted work at all stages and ask reviewers to give equivalent weight to abstracts with incomplete findings if they meet criteria for quality, relevance and importance.

 

With these points in mind reviewers are asked to mark abstracts using the full range of scores stated for each of 5 criteria. Each criterion has a score range with 0 being the lowest and higher scores representing higher quality abstracts. For example 0=poor, 5=excellent.

A high scoring abstract would describe an important problem (high need/demand; clear gap in the literature; practice or policy priority); articulate a focused aim for the study; state why a particular methodological approach was relevant (perhaps why others not); demonstrate rigorous application of the approach (be that review, empirical data collection/analysis, intervention); offer clear summary/highlight of findings and so demonstrate how the team is/will make potential impact.

A medium scoring abstract is likely to include work that has clear ‘vision’ (articulation of a problem, justification of an approach) but is more of a scoping stage, or at an earlier stage of data collection and analysis

A lower scoring abstract is likely to include poorly focused work, or clearly conceived but poorly executed work