Guidelines for Assessing Abstracts

Guidelines for assessing abstracts/Mentor Feedback Guidelines

Track and Title

  1. Is the track chosen appropriate? (If applicable)

Refer to the conference website:

  1. Does the title reflect the content of the abstract?


  1. Does the abstract follow scientific and formal criteria?
  2. Do the ideas cohere together?
  3. Does each section provide relevant information?


  1. Is terminology used correctly?
  2. Is the language concise and clear?
  3. Is the abstract well-written and easy to follow?



  1. Are the objectives clear and well-presented?
  2. Is the research design appropriate for the aim of the study?


  1. Is the methodology appropriate for the study?
  2. Is it easy to understand what methods the authors have used and why?
  3. Is the data analysis and interpretation appropriate?

Results/Lessons learned

  1. Are the findings explained clearly and relate to the objective and methods?
  2. Are the results accurately reported and the most important ones included?
  3. If tables and figures are included, are they sufficiently clear and useful?

Conclusions/Next steps

  1. Are the conclusions clearly laid out and based on the findings?
  2. Is the study innovative? Does it provide new insights?
  3. Are the results analysed in a broader context?
  4. Are the future implications of this study discussed?

MENTORS do not need to indicate whether they think an abstract is likely to be selected for the conference.

Acknowledgements and declarations

This Concept draws heavily from previous AMPs e.g. those organized by the IAS.

Abstracts can be submitted via the AMP portal at

AMP abstract submission:
Opening: 1st November, 2017
Closing:  15th January, 2018.