Kepada
Yth
Dekan/Kaprodi
Di tempat
Bapak2 dan ibu2 ytc.
Mohon untuk dapat mengumkan kepada mahasiswa2nya untuk mengirim abstract
terbaiknya (sebaiknya sudah disaring IPDGnya) untuk mengikuti 1 award khusus
utk mahasiswa pada ajang IADR Agustus 2017 di Taipeh kepada saya di erriastoeti@yahoo.com.
paling lambat tgl 20 April 2017. Pemenang akan dikirim ke IADR, Taipeh
2017. Berikut beritanya
IADR-SEA
Division/Joseph Lister Awards in Oral Disease Prevention - Poster competition
(by invitation only) undergraduate student only
For Joseph Lister Award, please send your submission to your country representatives for selection. Each Country Award Committee will select 1-2 eligible winners and the winners to submit their abstracts to IADR by the deadline 30 April 2017. The countries for entering the competition includes Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.
Berikut ketentuannya
Abstract Rules and Guidelines (IADR-SEA)
1. Individuals may present only one abstract.
2. Projects being submitted must be original research.
3. Individuals can co-author multiple abstracts.
4. Presenter must disclose any personal or co-author potential conflict of interest and agree to the IADR Policy
on Full Disclosure along with the IADR Abstract Licensing Policy (see the bottom of the page)
5. Previously published abstracts (in print or el ectronically) or those presented at another meeting are not allowed.
6. An abstract should be 300 words or less with a Title limits to 10 words or less.
Please capitalize the first letter of each word in the Title.
7. Each abstract is required to have an Objective(s), Method(s), Result(s), and Conclusion(s) section.
8. Objective(s): Background of the study is basically not required or should be kept very concise.
Please clearly state the objective(s) of the investigation.
9. Method(s): Methods used, key outcome variables and data analysis method.
10. Result(S): Please report essential results, including data and statistics (where appropriate)
11. Conclusion(s): Recommendation is basically not required or should be kept very concise.
12. Keywords: All abstract submissions may select up to 5 keywords from a list. Two keywords are required.
Keywords should be selected from Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) to be used for indexing of articles.
See: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/MBrowser.html for information on the selection of key words.
13. Awards: Each abstract submitter can choose to enter ONLY ONE award competition.
Word Limit Help
• Always hyphenate when possible (e.g., use “composite-resin restorations”, rather than “composite resin restorations”), and string together complicated phrases with hyphens.
• Abbreviate extensively [i.e., introduce abbreviations quickly and use them. Do not say hybrid zone but rather introduce hybrid zone (HZ) and then use HZ from that point onward].
• Always close spaces between numbers and units (e.g., instead of 30 mm, say 30-mm or 30mm; never leave spaces between numbers & standard deviations; and replace “30 ± 5” with “30±5”).
• Always use tables for the presentation of information when possible. Put units in headers and omit them from the rest of the matrix.
• Make sure that there is no inadvertent ‘dangling punctuation’ in the text, such as a comma or period that is not immediately adjacent to a word.
• Eliminate as many “articles” (a, an, the, …) as possible.
• String together all of the steps in the Method(s) section so that you are not starting and stopping individual sentences with separate subjects, verbs, and adjectives [e.g., “The samples (n=10/gp) were etched (37% H3POO4), washed (15s), stored (37°C, 7d), conditioned (2°C, 10m), tested (0.1mm/m), and statistically analyzed (ANOVA, Tukey’s, p<0.05).”].
• Replace statements with equations [e.g., Instead of “10 samples were tested for each group” insert “(n=10)” into an appropriate sentence.].
• Report all statistical differences with superscripts on results that can be attached rather than requiring separate statements.
• Construct tables to minimize the number of necessary cells.
Criteria for Abstract Acceptance
Presentations will be selected for the program on the basis of the scientific quality of the work as judged from the abstract. An impartial panel of reviewers will evaluate the content of each abstract. Selection of the abstracts will be made by these reviewers and whose decision is final.
The following are the evaluation criteria used in the review of abstracts. This is provided to call your attention to points that will be considered. In the final analysis, it will be the reviewers’ judgment of the value of any abstract that will determine whether the abstract should appear on the program. Since the abstracts are published and become part of the world’s scientific iterature, it is important that the content be scientifically sound and grammatically correct. Each abstract is reviewed so that high standards can be ensured.
Common reasons for rejection are:
1. Abstract is not original research.
2. The research is not innovative in its approach to the stated problem (methodology or data collection or analysis or
data interpretation).
3. Nature of problem not explicit from either title or abstract.
4. Material too closely related to another abstract submitted by the same co-authors;
should have been combined into a single paper.
5. Abstract has been presented at other meeting(s) or previously published.
6. Abstract poorly organized and/or not complete. Required information not given in abstract:
• Objective
• Methods
• Results – data and statistical analysis, or
• Conclusions
7. Methods of obtaining data not appropriate with respect to the stated problem for the following reasons:
• Methods not sufficiently precise to permit the measurements to be accurate, i.e., variations are within the error
limits for the method.
• Sampling method contains inherent discriminatory factors not recognized.
• Size of sample insufficient to show significant conformity or differences.
• No well-defined criteria given for evaluation of variables.
• Choice of controls questionable.
• No control groups reported
8. Significance of results related to the nature of the problem being studied is not stated.
9. Conclusions do not necessarily follow as a consequence of the method of analysis applied to the data.
10. Conclusions not adequately qualified, i.e., conclusions have greater limitations than implied by the author.
11. Correlations suggested may be fortuitous insofar as no plausible cause-and-effect relation has been suggested,
and none is obvious.
Terima kasih atas perhatiannya
Wass,
Tri Erri Astoeti
Chairperson Indonesian Section
