Abstract review criteria

The abstract review process

After submission of your abstract, a uniform and blinded review process will take place. The first step in this process is identifying any abstracts that do not conform to the abstract submission criteria. Any abstract that does not conform to the abstract submission criteria will not be reviewed.

The goal is not to limit the number of presentations or posters but to ensure that all abstracts published meet the minimum professional standards and reflect good work.

Your abstract will be allocated to reviewers who have identified expertise/knowledge of your abstract submission category and nominated area/s of Specialty Practice. Abstract reviewers will review your abstract against the abstract review criteria below.

The person responsible for submitting the abstract will be notified of the outcome of the abstract review process from Thursday 31 July 2025.

The most frequent reasons for abstract rejection are:

Abstract contains identifiable information, e.g., hospital name, workplace, author name/s
Abstract does not use mandatory subheadings
Abstract contains spelling or grammatical errors
Abstract is poorly written / not understandable
Abstract contains previously presented or published material
Abstract results presented are incomplete
Abstract does not clearly articulate the role of the pharmacist/pharmacy/pharmacy technician

Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines)

Does the abstract adhere to the abstract submission guidelines? This includes the use of correct subheadings.
Is the writing clear and organised to effectively communicate the findings?

1	2	3
The abstract preparation guidelines have not been followed and/or the abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled, contains multiple spelling or grammatical errors, and is difficult to comprehend.	The work outlined in the abstract is adequately described and mostly organised. The language of the abstract is clear with minimal spelling or grammatical or errors. The abstract preparation guidelines have partially been followed.	The abstract is clearly described, concise and well written using appropriate scientific language. The abstract contains no spelling or grammatical errors. All abstract preparation guidelines have been followed.

Criteria 2: Abstract purpose: Importance and relevance to pharmacy practice

To what extent does the abstract address a topic that is important?
To what degree does the work outlined in the abstract acknowledge, expand on, or introduce new concepts in pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines?
Is the work relevant to pharmacy practice?

1	2	3	4	5
Addresses a topic of either no or minimal importance AND/OR relevance to pharmacy practice.	Addresses a topic of some importance AND/OR relevance to pharmacy practice. Acknowledges but does not expand on current practice.	Addresses a topic of significant importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice; OR somewhat expands current practice.	Addresses a topic of most importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice; OR greatly expands current practice.	Addresses a topic of utmost importance AND relevance to pharmacy practice OR introduces a new concept into practice.

Criteria 3: Abstract methodology (research and pharmacy practice abstracts) / reporting of the case (case reports): Strength and appropriateness

Is the research, pharmacy practice work, or reporting of the case clearly described?
Is the method reliable and valid for addressing the abstract aim/objective?
Has the impact of potential variable factors (e.g., selection bias, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinically relevant information) been addressed?

1	2	3	4	5	6	7
The study method or reporting of the case is not described and/or appropriate.	The study method or reporting of the case is poorly described. The study method or reporting of the case is not appropriate for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors not discussed.	The study method or reporting of the case is adequately described. The study method or reporting of the case is somewhat appropriate for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors not discussed.	The study method or reporting of the case is adequately described but lacks clarity. The study method or reporting of the case is probably reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors partially discussed.	The study method or reporting of the case is fully described, but lacks clarity. The study method or reporting of the case is probably reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. Impact of potential variable factors mostly discussed and controlled for, as needed.	The study method or reporting of the case is well described with reasonable clarity. The study method or reporting of the case is reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. For research abstracts: the study involves an adequate sample size to address the aim (databases or retrospective studies), or meta-analyses. Impact of potential variable factors fully discussed and controlled for, as needed.	The study method or reporting of the case is fully and very clearly described. The study method or reporting of the case is reliable and valid for addressing the aim/objective. For research abstracts: the study involves prospective cohorts, multi-centre or site studies, consumer co-design principles or randomised controlled-trials. Impact of potential variable factors fully discussed and controlled for, as needed.

Criteria 4: Abstract results and conclusions

Are the results consistent with the aim (research and pharmacy practice) or do the results highlight existing literature on the topic (case reports)
Are the conclusions (evaluation/results and discussion) clearly stated and justified by the work outlined in abstract?

1	2	3	4
Results are not consistent with the aim or the case report does not highlight existing literature on the topic. Conclusions not included and/or not justified.	Results are somewhat consistent with the aim or the case report somewhat highlights existing literature on the topic. Conclusions present and weakly supported by the results.	Results are mostly consistent with the aim or the case report, strengthens existing literature on the topic. Conclusions stated and supported by the results.	Results are consistent with the aim or the case report adds new knowledge to existing literature on the topic. Conclusions clearly stated and supported by the results.

Criteria 5: Abstract impact and implications

Are the implications strong enough to impact pharmacy practice (e.g., in clinical practice, in future research) or responsible use of medicines (e.g., MUE)?
Are the implications strong enough to influence practice change?

1	2	3	4	5
Does not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines. Implications are absent.	Provides knowledge but likely will not impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines. Implications absent.	Provides knowledge that may impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines. Implications weakly influence practice change.	Provides knowledge that will likely impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines. Implications moderately influence practice change.	Provides knowledge that will most likely impact pharmacy practice or responsible use of medicines. Implications strongly influence practice change.

Medicines Management 2025