PROGRAMME SELECTION PROCESS

The Track Committees of the 18th World Conference on Tobacco or Health base their programme selection decisions upon the following reviewing process and scoring criteria:

 

ABSTRACTS: REVIEWING PROCESS

Two weeks after the submission deadline, all submitted abstracts will be allocated to be peer reviewed by a panel of local and international experts in the field of tobacco control. Each abstract will be reviewed and scored by at least three reviewers. The scores will then be submitted to the members of the Scientific and Track Committees, who will determine, during a selection meeting, which abstracts are accepted and their most suited presentation format.

SCORING

CRITERIAREQUIREMENTSSCORINGWEIGHT
Scientific abstractAbstracts on advocacy or policy topics
Background and objectivesThe background is relevant and well outlined. The study’s objectives or challenges or working hypotheses are clearly stated.The policy context and advocacy objectives (where applicable) are clearly described and relevant.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
0.5
Approach/

Methodology/

Implementation

The study design or intervention is appropriate given the objectives and/or challenges.
The main study parameters/activities, implementation steps, and data collection methods are specified and relevant.
The analytical methods used, including the statistical analysis, are appropriate to the study design and objectives.
Key elements of the advocacy campaign or policy or intervention implementation are clearly described, highlighting relative methods and approaches used.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
1
Results and/or impactResults and/or impact are clearly presented and in line with the analysis methodology and objectives.Results and/or impact are clearly presented in line with the key elements of advocacy approach or policy or intervention implementation.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
1
ConclusionThe conclusion is clear and consistent with the results.The conclusion is clear and consistent with results and/or impact.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
0.5
RelevanceThe study/intervention addresses the theme of the conference (Navigating Change : Leading with Impact), current, relevant scientific or public health issues. Findings are considered important and are likely to contribute to new knowledge, practice, policies or programmes.The advocacy campaign or policy or intervention implementation example addresses the theme of the conference (Navigating Change: Leading with Impact). Findings are considered important and are likely to contribute to new advocacy strategies, knowledge, policies or programmes.0 = not relevant
1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = extremely relevant
1
OriginalityThe study and/or findings are new or pathbreaking.The advocacy or policy or intervention approach is new or path breaking, either in objectives or in strategies to achieve them.0 = not original
1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = extremely original
1

Maximum Score: 25

SESSIONS: REVIEWING PROCESS

Two weeks after the submission deadline, submitted sessions (symposia, post-graduate courses, and workshops) will be allocated to be peer reviewed by a panel of local and international experts in the field of tobacco control. Each session will be reviewed and scored by at least three reviewers. The scores will then be submitted to the members of the Scientific and Track Committees, who will determine, during a selection meeting, which sessions are accepted.

SCORING

CRITERIAREQUIREMENTSSCORINGWEIGHT
Objectives

 

Clear and concise session objectives with statements describing what the authors/presenters expect participants to retain from the session.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
0.5
Coherence

 

Consistency between individual presentations and the session’s objectives; with a clear theme across presentations.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
1
Session Relevance to Conference ThemeThe session addresses and is relevant to the theme of the conference Navigating Change: Leading with Impact.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
1
Presentation RelevanceIndividual presentation titles relevant to the session’s content. Session revolving around a current topic with relevant and significant findings, providing participants with new evidence, approaches, or knowledge or updates on related practices.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
0.5
OriginalitySession delivering new evidence, approaches, or synthesis of recent information related to the technical area.1 = very poor
2 = poor
3 = average
4 = above average
5 = excellent
1
Country representationThis will be pre-populated by the Conference Secretariat.0 = only 1 country represented
1 = two to three countries represented
2 = four or more countries represented
1

 Maximum Score: 22