Annual Meeting Abstract Review Process

Program Review Committees

Abstracts submitted to the AIC annual meeting are reviewed by a number of committees, all comprised of AIC members. For specialty sessions, including the Collection Care Network, the abstract review committees are usually composed of the elected officers of a particular specialty group and chaired by each group’s annual meeting program chair. The general, poster, and pre-sessions each have their own review committees.  These three committees are chaired by AIC’s vice president, who serves as overall program chair for the annual meeting’s plenary (all-attendee/non-specialty) sessions. General, poster, and pre-session abstract review committee members are invited by the AIC vice president to serve on these committees; they are appointed with the aim of representing a diversity of approaches and expertise within the conservation field. Wide member-participation in the abstract selection process – for all sessions – is essential for creating a successful annual meeting program.

Meet the (Plenary) Program Committee

Abstract Review Process

During the review process, committee members read each abstract, discuss its merits, and consider its potential place in the final program. The AIC meeting is fortunate to receive many high quality abstracts each year. In general, many more abstracts are received than can be accommodated in the final program.  For example, 324 abstracts were received with 178 talks presented for the meeting in Chicago.  While deliberations of each review committee are strictly confidential, authors may request further information from the meetings director on staff in the case of rejected submissions.  

Abstract Review Criteria

Committee members are asked to consider the following criteria when evaluating abstracts.                      

  • Purpose/Hypothesis/Outcomes
    • Is the purpose of the presentation or hypothesis of the research clearly stated? 
    • For research yet to be completed, will the outcomes be useful regardless of results?

  • Relevance/Significance of Topic
    • Is the subject matter new, innovative, or under-represented? 
    • Does the paper demonstrate creative problem-solving, important information of use to the field, or include informative case studies? 
    • Does the topic represent an opposing point of view? 
    • Is the topic in keeping with the theme of the meeting? 

  • Writing
    • Quality of grammar, sentence structure, punctuation, appropriate terminology, and spelling; logical flow of ideas, overall conciseness (special consideration is given to international submissions).
    • Is the title descriptive of the content? 
    • Will the title attract attendees?