Abstracts
Reviewers Guidelines
In the context of ICASA 2025, an abstract is a stand-alone statement that briefly explains the essential information of a study, research project, policy or programme. As described in the Abstract Submission Guidelines, abstract submitters are asked to choose one track category for their abstract and choose one of the following options for abstract submission:
Option 1
Suited for research conducted in all disciplines. Abstracts submitted under the first option should contain concise statements of:Option 2
Suited for lessons learned through the programme or project implementation or management. Abstracts submitted under the second option should contain concise statements of:All submitted abstracts go through a blind peer-review process carried out by a team of approximately 1,400 abstract reviewers, who are international experts in the field of HIV, in addition to members of the Scientific Programme and Track Committees.
The abstracts and the scores are confidential.
Option 1
Option 2
Score | Score Descriptors |
---|---|
1 | Very weak: shows one or more critical shortcomings |
2 | Weak: shows significant weakness |
3 | Adequate: meets criteria |
4 | Good: meets criteria and has some distinctive value |
5 | Strong: meets all and exceeds some criteria, and has distinctive value in several ways |
6 | Excellent: exceeds expectations on all criteria |
Score | Final Score Recommendation |
---|---|
1.0 – 1.4 | Definite rejection |
1.5 – 2.4 | Recommended as rejected |
2.5 – 3.4 | Recommended as a potential poster exhibition |
3.5 – 4.4 | Recommended as a poster exhibition or potentially as a poster discussion |
4.5 – 5.4 | Recommended as poster discussion or potentially as an oral |
5.5 – 6.0 | Definite oral |
An abstract which has been previously published or presented at a national, regional or international meeting can only be submitted provided that there are new methods, new findings, substantially updated information or other valid reasons for submitting that can be provided by the author. If you think that an abstract has been previously presented or published, please indicate this on the scoring sheet.
Should you perceive that you have a conflict of interest regarding an abstract or that it is not in your area of expertise, please indicate this on the scoring sheet.
Abstracts that receive discrepant scores or an insufficient number of scores during the regular review period will be sent for “back-up” review to the SPC and Track members.
The Scientific Programme Committee makes the final selection of abstracts to be included in the conference programme. Abstracts can be selected for oral presentation in Oral Abstract Sessions or to be presented as posters. A small number of the highest-scoring posters are selected for presentation in Oral Poster Discussion Sessions, whereas. The majority of the posters, however, will be displayed in the Poster Exhibition area.
All conference abstracts are subject to the Conference Embargo Policy. Abstract content is confidential, and reviewers are under no circumstance allowed to pass information obtained from an abstract to a third party.
If you have questions or need assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us at abstract@saafrica.org
When scoring these criteria, please consider that work submitted under Option 2 may be reporting results/lessons learnt which, while not completely original, may be novel and original in a specific setting. For example, some implementation programmes have proved to be successful in some settings but are yet to be confirmed in other contexts.