Abstract Review Process

Abstract Review Process

We believe strongly in the integrity of our abstract evaluation process, have a very intentional plan for conflicts (actual and perceived) and follow a lengthy policy around ethical standards for collaboration. Conference abstracts undergo a systematic, blind, peer-review process. They are rated and scored using a uniform set of criteria by a minimum of two independent reviewers from the conference committee.

The qualifying reviews are then discussed in a private session where those with conflicts are removed from the virtual room. Due to the limited number of sessions, accepted abstracts are based upon scores and alignment of the abstract with the overall conference educational agenda.

2025 Abstract Review Process Changes
The 2024 IPFDC Committee voted to start a blind review process which will start during this 2025 cycle.

We are always looking to improve our processes and therefore welcome your feedback on our submission process and application. Please email aflicek@feedingmatters.org with any feedback.

Abstract Evaluation Process

1. Each abstract is randomly assigned to two reviewers. If a committee member foresees a potential conflict of interest or perceived bias they are required to ask for a re-assignment.
2. Reviewers have 1-3 weeks to review and evaluate the presentation and complete the abstract evaluation form, giving each abstract a score and adding any additional comments if needed to the form.
3. If the two initial scores are more than 10 points apart a 3rd reviewer is assigned to that abstract and scores are averaged.

Once all abstracts are evaluated the Conference Committee convenes for a 2-hour peer review meeting. During that meeting the committee follows the following process.

Abstract Review and Selection Process

1. First reviewer will give a 2-sentence summary of the abstract (1 strength, 1 weakness.)
2. Second reviewer will add up 1 additional strength and weakness that wasn’t mentioned.
3. Open up to committee for questions or comments.
4. Consensus on how to proceed with the abstract by main reviewers including chair if needed.
5. If further conversation is needed, either a second meeting will be set up or email communication with Feeding Matters staff and assigned reviewers will take place privately.
6. If there is a perceived identified bias or conflict of interest conference committee members are placed in breakout rooms for that specific abstract evaluation conversation and decision making.