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 group (SG) sessions, including the Collection Care Network, the abstract review committees are usually composed of the SG’s elected officers and chaired by each group’s annual meeting program chair. The general, poster, and pre-sessions each have their own review committee.  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-SG) 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.

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.  Last year, 324 were received with 178 talks presented in Chicago.  It should be noted that, while deliberations of each review committee are strictly confidential, in the case of rejected submissions, authors may request further information via Meetings Director Ruth Seyler.  

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?