Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evaluating abstracts: preparing a research conference

J M Morse1, C Dellasega, B Doberneck

  • 1School of Nursing, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Nursing Research
|September 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary

Designing fair scholarly screening systems for abstracts is impossible using checklists. A flexible approach, considering available time, space, and program goals, is recommended for selecting research presentations.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The health care needs of southeast asian refugees.

Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien·2011
Same author

Preventing falls in the elderly.

Reflections on nursing leadership·2002
Same author

Caregivers' perspectives of placement: implications for practice.

Journal of gerontological nursing·2002
Same author

Mothers and their disabled children: refining the concept of normalization.

Health care for women international·2002
Same author

Appropriate use of pilot studies.

Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing·2002
Same author

The cultural sensitivity of grounded theory.

Qualitative health research·2001

Area of Science:

  • Scholarly communication
  • Academic publishing
  • Conference management

Background:

  • Current scholarly screening systems often rely on rigid checklists.
  • These checklists are inadequate for universally identifying rigorous and significant research from abstracts.
  • This leads to the use of inappropriate criteria in paper selection.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To highlight the inherent difficulties in creating a fair scholarly screening system for abstracts.
  • To propose a more practical and effective method for selecting research presentations.
  • To advocate for a shift away from universal checklists in abstract screening.

Main Methods:

  • Critique of existing abstract screening methodologies.
  • Analysis of the limitations of checklists in evaluating research quality.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Proposal of an alternative, flexible screening framework.

    • Main Results:

    • No single checklist can reliably assess the rigor and significance of research presented in abstracts.
    • Rigid screening systems fail to account for the nuances of scholarly contributions.
    • A flexible approach is superior for effective abstract screening.

    Conclusions:

    • Scholarly screening systems must acknowledge the impossibility of a universally fair checklist.
    • A pragmatic approach, balancing logistical constraints with program objectives, is essential.
    • Flexible selection based on available resources and content needs ensures better conference programming.