Abstracts

Assessment Criteria

This paper sets out, for potential authors,  the assessment criteria being used by reviewers of abstracts for the 12th EURIPA Rural Health Forum.

Oral communications and posters

Assessment criteria for oral communications and posters

Is it relevant for rural general practice? YES / NO  (If NO: The priority  is lower)

Each item will be scored: 0 to 5

  1. Title and keywords
  2. Introduction: clear and relevant
  3. Rationale, purpose and research question: clear and well defined
  4. Subjects and method: appropriate (including criteria of qualitative and quantitative study)
  5. Results
  6. Conclusion: answer to the research question

Reviewers’ judgment taking into account both the scoring system and your presenter’s preference:

  • WS : Accepted as workshop
  • OC: Accepted as oral communication
  • P: Accepted as poster presentation
  • S: «Special Session on abstracts of clinical interest ».
  • R: Rejected

The process
The anonymised abstracts will be peer reviewed by two reviewers:

  • Reviewers will score all abstracts and will summarise their results using EURIPA’s on-line scoring system
  • The Chair of the Scientific Committee will collect the two scores for each abstract and will calculate an average score for each abstract
  • The Scientific Committee will provide feedback for each rejected abstract
  • The Scientific Committee will provide advice and suggestions for those abstracts included in the «Special Session on abstracts of clinical interest ».

Workshops

Assessment criteria for workshops

Is it relevant for general practice? YES NO (If NO: The priority is lower)

Each item will be quoted: 0 to 5

  1. Rationale (needs to be served)
  2. Methods (educational tools and approaches)
  3. Expected results (skills acquired)
  4. Impact of workshop (on research, education and health policy).

Reviewer’s judgment taking into account both the scoring system and your presenter’s preference

  • WS : Accepted as workshop
  • O: Accepted as oral presentation
  • P: Accepted as poster presentation
  • S: Special session Interesting paper in progress
  • R: Rejected

The process

  • Reviewers will score all abstracts and will summarise their results using EURIPA’s on-line scoring system
  • The Chair of the Scientific Committee will gather the two scores for each abstract and will calculate an average score for each abstract
  • The Scientific Committee will provide feedback for each rejected abstract
  • The Scientific Committee will determine how each abstract will be delivered as there are fewer workshop sessions compared to oral communications.


If in doubt, you can send your abstract and ask the scientific committee for help by writing an e-mail to ferdinando.petrazzuoli@gmail.com as soon as possible.