Follow the instructions below and…

wait-30-days

ABSTRACT SUBMISSION IS CLOSED
are you a late breaker? scroll down and check the instructions

TOPICS


  • Neurology
  • Cardiac Physiology Pathology
  • Neonatal Pulmonology, Neonatal Respiratory Support, Resuscitation
  • Perinatal Pharmacology and Anethesia
  • Epidemiology & Networks
  • Neonatal Fetal Nutrition and Metabolism
  • Follow Up
  • Neonatal GI Physiology & NEC
  • Neonatal Hematology and Bilirubin
  • Circulation Macro Microcirculation
  • Neonatal Infectios Diseases / Immunology
  • NICU Quality Improvement, Parents Centre Care
  • Perinatal Practices
  • Ethics

Abstract submission guideline


SUBMIT YOUR ABSTRACT

The Scientific Committee invites clinicians and scientists, who are interested in sharing their work with the participants of the meeting, to submit their work in abstract form.

Changes in abstracts cannot be made after submission.

Please follow the instructions given below and make sure that each field in the abstract form has been completed.

Abstract submission deadline is MAY 31st 2017

Oral communication and Poster presentation (sent until MAY 31st 2017) will be published on “JPNIM – Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine”.* (check the seven editorial steps of the journal abstract review on the bottom od the page!)

The Journal will be available online in a Web-based electronic format.

The direct link will be published on October 31st 2017.

Accepted clinical cases will be presented as poster presentation.

 

* The journal reserves the right to reject abstracts if considered invalid.

LATE BREAKERS

In case you could not submit an abstract before the deadline for scientific reasons (i.e.: the data was not available, clinical trial was not completed), you still have a chance to send your scientific contribution for session called LATE BREAKERS ABSTRACTS.

You have to send an e-mail to abstract@jens2017.eu (please be sure to state the reasons for the delayed submission).

Such abstracts can be submitted until August 15th, 2017

*late breaker abstract will not be published in the JPNIM journal

GENERAL OVERVIEW

We welcome abstracts on all topics of relevance for paediatric research or for clinical practice in neonatology. We will host a program that includes basic science, epidemiology, clinical investigation, trials, organization of care, quality improvement, and professional training and education.

Every abstract will be peer-reviewed. The reviewers are appointed by ESN Council, the ESPR sections (Brain and Development, Pulmonology, Circulation, Oxygen Transport and Haematology Nutrition and Gastroenterology, Epidemiology, Pharmacology, Other) and UENPS. Please try to fit your abstract into one of the specific topics. This will help us to prepare an interesting conference programme.

We will accept all well-written abstracts that have a general interest regarding the topic in question, the methodology, or the results. In particular, we welcome abstracts reporting on the process of large clinical trials of methodological interest, such as clinical protocols, ethical or organizational issues, pilot data, quality control, or plans for statistical analysis.

The decision on acceptance and the preliminary program will be made by the scientific committee during their meeting in June 2017. Final acceptance depends on registration for the conference by one of the authors.

All accepted abstracts must be presented and discussed. There will be three formats:

– Oral presentation will consist of 10 minutes of presentation and 5 minutes of discussion

Poster presentation will consist of 2 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for discussion + electronic poster

Poster display – electronic poster with no presentation time.

ABSTRACT STRUCTURE

Please note that the abstract needs to be structured, and to include the following sections:

a) Introduction – 700 characters including spaces

b) Materials and Methods – 800 characters including spaces

c) Results – 900 characters including spaces

d) Conclusion – 450 characters including spaces

1 image or 1 table

 

Case reports constitute an exception to this, and these should include the following sections:

a) Introduction- 700 characters including spaces

b) Case report – no limits

c) Conclusion – 450 characters including spaces

1 image or 1 table

INFORMATION FOR PRESENTERS

Your abstract can be accepted as Poster, Poster Presentation or Oral presentation:

 

Poster

All the posters presenters, who received the acceptance email stating that “Your abstract has been accepted as Poster”, should upload an electronic poster as per the instructions below.

Please note there is no presentation for posters.

 

Poster presentation

All the posters presenters, who received the acceptance email stating that “Your abstract has been accepted for a Poster presentation”, are kindly requested to check the date, time and hall name in the Scientific Program.

Poster presenters are requested to upload an electronic version of their abstract as per the instructions below.

The presentation time is 5 minutes in total (2 minutes for presentation and 3 minutes for discussion)

We kindly ask you to prepare presentation with 2 slides only on a USB Key with the following name of the file: “PosterPresentation_lastname_time”. The file should be brought to the slide center one day before the presentation.

 

Your presentation will consist of two parts:

  • The poster itself (uploaded as the instructions above)
  • Presentation during a poster session (2 slides – 2 minutes of presentation + 3 minutes of discussion)

 

Oral presentation

All oral presenters are kindly requested to check the date, time and hall name of their presentation in the Scientific Program.

The presentation time is 15 minutes in total (10 minutes of presentation and 5 of discussion).

We kindly ask you to prepare presentation with 5 slides only on a USB Key with the following name of the file: “OralPresentation_lastname_time”. The file should be brought to the slide center one day before the presentation.

 

Electronic Poster Instructions

After you have been given the link for poster upload, please follow the instruction given below to prepare your electronic poster:

 

Accepted file format for submission: .PDF

We recommend traditional vertical format (A4).

File size: we suggest max 20 MB

Please consider that the file will be opened with a viewer that fits the scale of the display screen, independently from the screen dimension you have chosen. Therefore, the format is most important than the absolute measure. Different sizes will be anyway visualized, but they cannot appear to fit with the entire display monitor.

The maximum allowed size is 2.160 pixels x 3.840, with a minimum resolution of 72 dpi. The upload is limited to files having 20 Mb maximum, excluding the video files. (we suggest A4 format).

One-page poster is the simplest option, but consider that a multipage file is supported. In this case, it is recommended to limit your poster to no more than 3-4 pages.

Audio comment – MP3 File

Accepted file format for submission: .MP3

Duration: 1-2 min

File size: Max 10 MB

In addition to the poster file, during submission, you can also attach your audio comment. We suggest 1 or 2 minutes speech max. An headset will be available to hear your audio comment on-site during free-time slots.

The maximum size for audio files to be uploaded is 10 Mb.

REVIEWING PROCESS

The scientific committee consists of the ESPR/ESN council, the UENPS council and for the process with assistance from the secretariat. (you can check also directly on the ESPR website: http://www.espr.info/meetings/how-we-organize)

List of topics

The list of topics for each of the jENS sections + ‘other’ topics to cover new ground is reviewed and revised. Oral parallel sessions are planned for topics where a sufficient number of good abstracts are expected.  Therefore the choice of keynote speakers depends on the list of topics which must be decided before invitations are sent out.

Scoring process

The councils of ESPR/ESN, UENPS always serve as reviewers. The section secretaries expecting many abstracts may engage more people. Each reviewer is expected to review 50 abstracts, and each abstract must be reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. Reviewers must confirm that they will do the reviews in the allocated time period.

The reviewers must score three test abstracts and the statistics is circulated before the abstract submission deadline.

Reviewers score their allotted abstracts (see scoring system below) without knowing the authors or institutions and without knowing the scores of others. Reviewers indicate if they consider the abstract to be less relevant for the topic. Section secretaries oversee the review process of their topics, and the chairman oversees the review of the remaining topics.

When all scores are available

The top-20 scoring abstracts that were submitted by young investigators for the prize, and the top-10 scoring abstracts submitted for the Bengt Roberston prize are re-scored by the scientific committee.

Abstract acceptance and program setting

  1. At the program meeting, one printed copy of each abstract is available. Abstract are on separate sheets of paper and grouped by topics. The meeting program with open abstract slots in the parallel oral sessions and parallel poster sessions is available on the web for simultaneous use during the program meeting.
  2. The committee discusses the lowest scoring abstracts. Abstracts that are of no general interest either regarding question, methodology, or results are rejected.
  3. The abstract for the Bengt Robertson prize is selected.
  4. The six abstracts for the young investigator prize section are selected.
  5. Abstracts indicated as potentially misplaced in topic are moved to other topics if more relevant, or to an ‘open’ group
  6. The Abstracts are distributed into meaningful groups and sequences. The priority is to allow the audience to understand the scientific issues as deeply as possible and to maximise the exchange of experience and views. Since oral parallel sessions generally have a greater audience (fewer parallels), abstracts with broader interest is preferentially used for oral sessions. This work is lead by the section secretaries and the chairman for their respective topics in parallel groups. Some exchange of abstract may take place to optimise the building of meaningful contexts and the abstract from the ‘open’ group is also considered. Abstracts that cannot fit into a context in the program can be rejected at this time as decided by the committee.
  7. When all abstracts for a session has been selected, and the optimal sequence has been determined the paper are clipped together and a session title is coined. Finally, the session title and abstract numbers are typed into the conference program.
  8. Abstract numbers in the program are cross-checked against the abstract data base to make sure that all abstracts have been delt with.
  9. The poster sessions are distributed on the available time slots.
  10. Presenting author names are cross-checked for time conflicts and abstracts or sessions are moved as necessary and possible, or authors are informed.

AFFILIATIONS AND AUTHORS OF THE ABSTRACTS WILL BE ANONYMOUS DURING THE REVIEWING PROCESS

Abstract scores (from 1 to 5; x and COI):

1:  Unintelligible or without general interest as regards either question, methodology, or results, e.g. a case report or case series without a special analysis or interpretation. Why report it?

2: Studies without a clear question or special analysis or interpretation. Why was done?

3: Well-motivated experiment, trial, epidemiological investigation, or other observation, but inconclusive by methodological weakness or lack of statistical power. A fair try.

4:  High standard work with firm and well-founded conclusions. A clear hit.

5:  High standard work. Highly relevant: High impact results, or by breaking new ground by question or methodology. A smash!

X:  Clearly interesting, but concerns of major flaw or scientific misconduct. Please fill in comments. Must be discussed by the council.

COI: Conflicts of interest, not evaluated.

“JOURNAL OF PEDIATRIC AND NEONATAL INDIVIDUALIZED MEDICINE” (JPNIM)
the seven editorial steps

  • RECEPTION OF ABSTRACTS SELECTED BY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE.
  • VERIFICATION OF CONTENT. Abstracts are checked for the presence of parts copied from texts of other authors or the same authors published elsewhere, either in their entirety or as abstracts. In no case may the percentage of parts from other works represent more than 20% of the abstract text. Figures and tables (if present) shall be original and not published elsewhere, not even by the authors themselves. The number of figures and tables shall not exceed the number declared in the author guidelines. They shall be consistent with the text presented. Should there be more figures or tables than those foreseen, the “Journal of Pediatric and Neonatal Individualized Medicine” (JPNIM) reserves the right to select the most significant ones.
    • VERIFICATION OF THE QUALITY OF ENGLISH IN THE TEXT. This check takes into consideration both serious errors, such as the presence in the text and/or figures and tables of terms in the authors’ mother tongue, and the presence of evident errors in grammar and syntax. JPNIM will not publish abstracts unsuitable from the linguistic standpoint.
    • EDITORIAL CHECK. The formal presentation of the abstract is analysed. For example, authors’ affiliations shall be in English and not in the language of their country. Furthermore, there shall be consistency between authors’ affiliations in the different abstracts presented at the same international congress. Also checked is respect for the guidelines for presentation of abstracts, e.g. the proper order of paragraphs: introduction, methods, results, conclusions, references (if present). The citing of figures and tables (if present) shall be checked and include captions. Items in the references (if present) shall be correctly indicated in the text and presented in the journal’s citation style. Abstracts, figures and tables are printed following the journal’s style. Abstracts that present evident inconsistencies and/or editorial discrepancies that cannot be remedied will be rejected.
    • EVALUATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION. This check is not a substitute of the work of the referees who are charged with selecting the abstracts, but assists them and completes their work by verifying the internal consistency of the data presented.
    • PROOFREADING OF THE FINAL DRAFT BY THE JOURNAL’S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF.
    • OVERALL FINAL EVALUATION OF ABSTRACTS BY THE CHAIRPERSONS OF THE EVENT. The final drafts receive final approval from the chairpersons of the event for the “OK to release”.