Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines)
Unacceptable (1): The abstract preparation guidelines have not been followed and/or the abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled and is difficult to comprehend.
Good (2): The work outlined in the abstract is described in general terms and the language of the abstract is clear with minimal typos or errors.
Excellent (3): The abstract is clearly described, concise and well written using appropriate scientific language.
Criteria 2: Innovation / novel practice
Unacceptable (1): The work outlined in the abstract is not new or novel and has been described multiple times before.
Fair (2): The abstract outlines a somewhat novel topic or a new spin on previously seen work.
Good (3): The work outlined in the abstract is original or novel but is not fully realised in the abstract.
Excellent (4): The abstract describes a completely innovative or novel piece of work / topic which is of the utmost interest.
Criteria 3: Significance / Impact / Relevance to pharmacy practice
Unacceptable (1): The work outlined in the abstract has no or minimal impact on pharmacy practice.
Fair (2): The work outlined in the abstract makes some reference to the impact on pharmacy practice but is not well described.
Good (3): The abstract clearly outlines the impact of the work on pharmacy practice and its applicability (where relevant) to a range of practice settings.
Excellent (4): The abstract demonstrates how the work is leading practice to maximise impact on patient care.
Criteria 4: Methodology (Research abstracts and Pharmacy Practice) OR Reporting of the case (Case report abstracts only)
|Research and pharmacy practice||Case reports|
|Unacceptable (1)||The method or action description is unclear and there are no results/evaluation.||There is no, or limited information presented about the patient and case.|
|Fair (2)||The aim/objective is inadequately described. The methods or action and results/evaluation are present but are incomplete and/or superficial.||The case report lacks detail and is not well described.|
|Good (3)||The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective and the methods or actions and results/evaluation align with the aim.||The case report contains all relevant details and includes the outcome or resolution.|
|Excellent (4)||The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective which the method or actions accurately address. Results/evaluation and discussion are clear and comprehensive.||The abstract comprehensively outlines all relevant details of the case and provides important lessons for pharmacy practice.|