Based on the abstract guidelines of the yearly ESDAR Conference
Abstract requirements
Abstracts must be written in English. If you are not a native speaker, ask for help to edit the grammar and style. Your name must only appear once as first author of an abstract. However, you may submit additional abstracts as co-author. Abstracts should contain the purpose/objectives of the study, methods used, results, and conclusions. Do not forget to indicate the species within the title. A maximum of two references (first author, year, journal, volume, pages) of published full papers (no abstracts!) may be included. No figures or tables are allowed. Abbreviations have to be defined and should be used sparingly. Abstracts without results (e.g., the results of this study will be presented at the meeting) are not accepted. Abstracts are subjected to scientific review by peers. The decision on acceptance/rejection by the program committee is final.
The maximum size of abstracts is limited to 1,800 characters including spaces from the first word of the title through to the last word/character of the text, excluding author names and affiliations.
Review of abstracts
The abstracts are subjected to a rigorous peer-review process. Firstly, abstracts must meet the formal requirements laid down in the information for authors of abstracts. Abstracts exceeding the character limit of 1,800 are not accepted. Abstracts may be re-submitted before the deadline expires. The corresponding author of each submitted abstract will receive an automated confirmation email. If not, they should make contact immediately with the program secretary.
Submitted abstracts are then distributed to the reviewers and rated by 2 reviewers
1. Accepted without revision
2. Accepted after minor revision
3. Major revision necessary
4. Not acceptable (rejected)
Abstracts, which need a revision, will be returned to the corresponding author with detailed questions/instructions. After re-submission, the original reviewer again reviews the abstract. Abstracts, which need only minor revision will be returned to the author and will be re-checked after re-submission for the requested corrections. Very often the reason for rejection of abstracts is poor scientific quality. e.g. poorly designed experiments with inappropriate statistical analyses, or abstracts containing no data.
Poor language per se is not a reason to reject an abstract; however, we strongly recommend all non-native speakers to get help from a native speaker. Minor language problems are edited by the reviewers.