Author Instructions & Information
- Researchers with new results in areas relevant to the meeting are encouraged to submit an abstract online for oral or poster presentation consideration.
- One abstract may be submitted per attendee as presenting author.
- The presenting author must be registered as a delegate and pay the required fee by the registration deadline.
- All presenters of an oral presentation who are graduate students or postdoctoral fellows at the end date of the meeting are eligible for Trainee Awards, depending on availability.
- All abstracts must be written exclusively in English (including the title, abstract text, author names, and affiliations).
- We are striving to ensure the broadest possible coverage and exchange of recent advances.
- Kindly see links to Key Dates & Topics for more information about topic areas and abstract submission deadlines.
- If you cannot submit the abstract prior to receiving company approval by the date abstracts are due (see Key Dates), please submit a placeholder with the title, authors, and a brief description of the kind of material that you would like to present, and indicate when approval is expected. This material will be kept confidential. It is your responsibility to revise the abstract to the final version upon approval.
- Authors will be notified whether the submitted abstract has been accepted for oral or poster presentation, or was not selected for presentation.
During abstract submission, you will be asked to provide the following:
Abstract Content Guidelines
- Do not include any information which could reveal your identity, or that of your co-authors, in the title or body of your abstract, including names, email addresses, or affiliations. All author names are stored separately from the title and body of the abstract to ensure a double-blinded review. If you include any identifying information, your submission will be automatically rejected. In the body of the abstract, you should also eliminate all direct references to your own previous work. That is, avoid phrases such as "this contribution generalizes our results for XYZ". Finally, please do not disproportionately cite your own previous work. In other words, make your submission as anonymous as possible. We need your cooperation in our effort to maintain a fair, double-blind reviewing process - and to consider all submissions equally.
- Introduction/Background/Aim of the Work: The background should be short, but describe what is already known about the subject, related to the paper in question as well as what is not known about the subject and hence what the study intends to examine. In most cases, the background can be framed in just 2 to 3 sentences, with each sentence describing a different aspect of the information. The purpose of the background is to provide the reviewer with a background to the study which will lead into a description of the methods employed in the investigation.
- Instrumentation/Methods: This section should contain enough information to enable the reviewer to understand what was done, and how.
- Results & Discussion: The results section is the most important part of the abstract and should be the longest, containing as much detail about the findings as the word count permits.
- Conclusions: This section should contain the most important take-home message of the study, expressed in a few precisely worded sentences. Usually, the finding highlighted here relates to the primary outcome measure; however, other important or unexpected findings should also be mentioned. You may also consider expressing an opinion about the theoretical or practical implications of the findings, or the importance of these findings for the field. You may also want to comment on whether the work is unpublished or in press.
Submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the MSB 2023 Organizing Committee and Session Organizers in a double-blind manner. The reviewers will not have access to your name, institution, or position status. A review will be based solely on the information provided in the abstract.
Four criteria will be used to score each abstract as follows:
The following qualitative descriptions will be used to associate a score of 1-10 for each criterion, generating a total potential score of 40.
0 No Originality
1 to 3 Many other well-designed studies published like this one
4 to 7 Few similar studies to this
8 to 10 Unique
0 to 3 Inadequate analysis; conclusions not supported by data
4 to 6 Deficient analysis; conclusions partially related to data
7 to 10 Appropriate analysis; conclusions supported by data
0 to 3 Little if any significance; does not advance the field
4 to 6 Modest contribution to the field; advances the field modestly
7 to 10 Important contributions to the field
Fit to Session
0 The work is not a fit for the session
1 to 3 Some fit is noted, but only in a minor role
4 to 7 The application is very loosely fitted to the session topic
8 to 10 Strong focus with a good fit to the session topic