1st Congress of joint European Neonatal Societies (jENS)

Reviewing process 

The scientific committee consists of the ESPR/ESN council, the UENPS council and for the process with assistance from the secretariat.

  • 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 abstract are expected.  Therefor the list of topics informs the choice of keynote speakers and 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. 



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?

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

3Well-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. smash!

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

COIConflicts of interest, not evaluated