Guidelines for AVA abstract reviewers
Reviewers are asked to assist the abstracts editor in ensuring that the abstracts of all
presentations and posters at AVA conferences are ethical and good science. The editor’s decision
is final and reviewers’ advice on acceptability is greatly appreciated.
The reviewer should advise whether the abstract is suitable for inclusion in the Conference
Proceedings (includes on-line in VAA) and whether an oral or poster presentation would be the
most suitable.

















Please read the author guidelines – so you know what should be there
Remember this is an abstract – it is not the full paper!
It must be clear that no unethical methods were used – this includes using too few or too
many animals.
Pilot studies and early results of an investigation are acceptable if everything else is
covered – but the title must include “preliminary” or “pilot study”
The abstract should be founded on existing knowledge and must be relevant to the AVA
The language used must be easy to understand and contain no ambiguous statements
The abstract must contain methods and results
The results must contain some data
The conclusions must be supported by the results
The reviewer should not suggest alternative methods or reflect on future research
The reviewer should not nit pick. As long as the information is clear, the style of writing
belongs to the author
The reviewer should not request copious methodological information. This is an abstract!
It should be expected that submitted abstracts will not need correction! If so, no corrections
should be requested, and no re-review is necessary.
Revised abstracts with only minor corrections can be accepted by the editor and do not
need to be returned to the reviewer.
Suggestions for corrections should be limited to:
o Ensuring a succinct (3 lines max) introduction to the subject
o Grammar to make the abstract easily understood
o Methods paragraph must contain objective information such as doses, measuring
methods and summary of statistical tests used.
o Results paragraph must contain real data (not just greater than.. or different from..)
o Ensuring conclusions follow from the results
The reviewer should advise rejection of the abstract if:
o The work is considered unethical
o There are no data presented
Revised abstracts will be returned to the reviewer only once (the reviewers should be
available to re-review once only IF major corrections are required). The editor decides if the
author has fulfilled the reviewer’s requests.