2026-05-08
Abstract submission checklist
Most messy reviews start as a messy call. Lock the scientific and file rules before authors arrive, or the committee will spend the first week repairing intake.
Name the scientific shape of the meeting
List tracks, topic codes and presentation types (oral, poster, flash, symposium). If the programme will not use a category, do not collect it. Authors will invent meanings for leftover dropdowns.
Decide who counts as an author
Corresponding author, presenting author, and the full author list are not the same role. Spell out affiliation format, whether a student can submit, and how many presentations one person may give. Put those rules next to the form, not only in a PDF linked from a newsletter.
File rules are part of peer review
Length, figure limits, anonymisation (if you use it), and whether a full paper is required later should be impossible to miss. Incomplete files should be visible to the author as incomplete, not discovered by a reviewer who cannot open a font.
Collect the statements the committee will need
Conflicts, ethics, trial registration, or funder acknowledgements — only ask for what this meeting will actually use. Empty mandatory fields train authors to type “n/a” everywhere.
Plan the day after the deadline
Who may grant an extension, how withdrawals work, and when assignment starts should be decided before the call opens. The checklist is finished when a new volunteer could open the call without asking the previous chair to remember the exceptions.