ABSTRACT REVIEWERS

Abstract submission and reviewer sign-up closed April 11, 2021 at 11:59 PM, Eastern Daylight Time (GMT -4).

The abstract review process will begin on April 27th. Instructions for abstract reviewers will be sent out on April 27th at 2PM EDT (GMT-4). All reviews MUST be completed by May 26th at 12PM EDT (GMT-4).

In order to participate as an abstract reviewer, we require participants to hold a master’s degree, doctoral degree (or an equivalent certificate program) or have at least 5 years experience in your field.  

All abstract reviewers are required to review a minimum of 10 abstracts; however, if you are interested in reviewing additional abstracts you will be able to indicate so in the sign-up form.

In order to access the conference software and complete your assigned reviews, please follow these simple steps:

1. Log in to the SMM website. Click HERE to get started!
2. Once you sign in, select “SMM2022 Conference Registration and Abstract Submission” from the left hand menu.
3. On the conference “Profile Home” screen, click the “ACCESS THE REVIEWER SITE” button from the provided options.
4. On the “Reviewer Home” page, you will be able to view the total number of reviews that have been randomly assigned to you. Click the “Abstract Review” button to get started.
5. You will see your list of reviews that have been assigned to you. Click the button next to any submission to start your review.
6. All reviews MUST be completed by May 26th at 12PM EDT (GMT-4).

Each submitted abstract will be peer reviewed and scored by a minimum of two independent reviewers who have expertise in the specific subject area. The abstract review process will be conducted blind, i.e. all authors’ names will be removed before the abstract is reviewed.

Reviewers apply the following four criteria to evaluate abstract submissions:

• Originality (1 to 5)
  Abstracts containing significant new findings or presenting new approaches will be given higher scores than those that describe updates, modifications to older findings, or routine applications of well-established research methods.
• Quality (1 to 5)
  Abstracts should demonstrate that robust and appropriate research methods were used, and include a scientifically robust study design. The outcome of the research should provide clear answers to the main research questions posed. The methods and results should be described in sufficient detail and the conclusions supported by the data.
• Importance (1 to 5)
  This criterion addresses the importance of the research in terms of advancing the field of marine mammal science, or the conservation and management of marine mammals.
• Presentation (1 to 5)
  Abstracts that are clearly written and concise will receive higher scores. This criterion addresses how well the specific research question(s) and objectives, methods used, primary results, etc are explained, rather than the quality of the study itself. A clearly written abstract follows a logical order (e.g. aims, methods, results, followed by a clear interpretation of the results and any conservation management implications).

After adjusting for differences in scoring among individual reviewers, abstracts will be ranked on the basis of their overall score, and available slots for presentations will be allocated according to merit using all submissions combined, taking into account presentation preferences.

The abstract review process is blind; however, if it becomes apparent that you have a conflict of interest with regards to any assigned abstract, we ask that you abstain from reviewing that particular submission. There is an option to indicate the conflict at the top of the review form. If you abstain from reviewing a submission, you DO NOT need to contact us. We will be notified and will re-assigned the abstract review to another reviewer.