Every paper is rated by each reviewer on a scale from 0-13, 13 being the best, 0 the worst. The papers and the posters are rated exactly the same way. If the abstract clearly represents significant industrial bias: 0 points are assigned, means rejection.
Applicants cannot choose between ‘oral’ or ‘poster’. In the announcement it is mentioned that if the paper is elected for Mario Boni oral presentation section, the author is expected to have the abstract presented at the annual meeting.
There will be 4 reviewers and they can indicate if the abstract is from their own group and they cannot score it. The final score is therefore averages and corrected for the number of reviewers.
From one group only 2 abstracts can be accepted for oral presentation. The two highest scoring abstracts will be chosen for oral presentation and the others will be redirected to the poster section.
If an author is not able to present his abstract and withdraws it from oral presentation, the highest ranking abstract that was not chosen for oral presentation nor Mario Boni poster session is invited for oral presentation.
Design maximum 5,
Quality maximum 5
Methods maximum 3
Add up and score 0-13 for each paper for clinical studies
|Clinical relevance mentioned||2|
| Methods adequate in relation to research |
| Outcome parameters in relation to research |
| Amount of outcome parameters in |
accordance with number of patients