Abstract assessment and scoring

Abstracts should be written in plain English and no longer than 400 words. Authors can include one exhibit (table, figure or box), but no references.

Abstracts will be reviewed by the TUKFS26 Organising Committee, including researchers from a wide range of disciplines and projects. All abstracts will be independently assessed by 2 reviewers to prioritise the most original contributions and strongest science. This will help the Organising Committee to plan a diverse yet coherent programme of original contributions.

We will aim to include all submissions as either a plenary or parallel session oral presentation or as a poster. The guidance below should help those submitting abstracts to provide the clearest possible information about their work to aid selection for sessions.

All abstracts should focus on work funded by the TUKFS programme. This might include empirical research, as well as methodological research, development of tools or interventions, or aspects of capacity building for food systems policy, practice or research. We expect all work will focus on food systems, will be interdisciplinary in nature and will demonstrate food system stakeholder involvement.

Abstracts will be scored as follows to enable ranking and selection. First read the abstract and assess whether it provides a clear and comprehensive account of the research. Then score it according to the scheme below. There is a maximum of 10 points for each abstract.

Title (max 30 words): 0-1 point

Is the title specific/informative/concise? For example, does it accurately describe the population to be studied, the study design and/or method of data collection/analysis, the research objective or question, the primary outcome(s) and the intervention and comparator if appropriate. The PICOT format may be helpful: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe).

Background: 0-1 point

Is the rationale for the work clearly stated, including the gap in current knowledge that this work aims to fill? Are the objective(s), hypotheses or research question(s) clearly stated? Is the policy or practice context made clear?

Methods: 0-3 points

Are the Methods clearly described? Studies vary in their methods, so the criteria will need to be applied flexibly according to the type of study. However, the methods should give a clear indication of what was done at each stage of the study.

Questions to ask of the abstract:

  • Is the study sample and sampling method clearly described?
  • Are the methods of data acquisition, outcome measures and methods of data analyses described and appropriate to address the aims and objectives?
  • Are issues of validity considered?
  • Are statistical methods reported?
  • If an evaluation, are intervention and control conditions adequately described?
  • If quantitative modelling (including economic) is used, are the methods/analytical techniques and software/tools specified? Are any sensitivity analyses specified?
  • For qualitative studies, is the theoretical basis methods of data analyses described and appropriate to address the aims and objectives?

Results: 0-3 points

Are preliminary or final results presented? Where data are not presented, it should be made clear that data will be available by the time of the conference. As with study methods, results will vary by the type of study, so criteria will need to be applied flexibly according to the type of study.

For quantitative studies: Is the representativeness of the population considered? Are the main outcomes presented? Are data presented using appropriate metrics? Are data presented to give a clear indication of precision or significance (e.g. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs)

If a modelling study, is the representativeness of numerator and denominator data considered? Are sensitivity analyses presented?

For qualitative studies: Is the sample adequately described? Is the emergence of main themes and categories presented systematically and meaningfully?

Conclusions: 0-2 points

Are the conclusions clear and concise? Do they reflect the aims and objectives? Are they supported by the results presented? Is it clear what this study adds to current knowledge? Are the (potential) implications for policy, practice and further research (as appropriate) made clear? Is there a memorable “take-home” message?

Session format guidance

Workshop

A workshop will take place over 90 minutes in a parallel session (max 40 participants). It must have a clearly defined and realistic outcome. It must fully engage all participants in activities and must have sufficient facilitation. You will need to arrange your own facilitators, who will need to be fully briefed.

Workshop abstract (max 400 words):

Please describe your proposed workshop, including the following headings:

  1. Title – which must include the topic or methodological focus, and an indication of the purpose (max 30 words)
  2. Objectives – state concisely what the workshop aims to achieve (max 3 Objectives)
  3. Methods/format – state what the workshop will involve in terms of activities, including an indication of the length of each segment in minutes. Ensure you allow sufficient time for each activity.
  4. Outputs – state clearly what will be the outputs of the workshop and how these will benefit research, policy or other stakeholder communities. Ensure the workshop will deliver clearly defined benefits.
  5. Team – state who will facilitate the workshop and what their roles will be.

Symposium

A symposium is a themed session of 90 mins with 3 oral presentations of original work from the TUKFS programme. Abstracts will be scored using the criteria above. Ideally presentations will be contributed by at least 2 different funded projects, although 3 diverse presentations on a coherent theme will likely be acceptable .

There should be a named chair (who is not a presenter of a paper), and a named discussant. The chair and discussant might be from academic, policy or practice, but is not a presenter of a paper.

We suggest the following:

  • Introduction – background to the papers (chair) (5 mins)
  • Paper 1 + questions of clarification (20 mins)
  • Paper 2 + questions of clarification (20 mins)
  • Paper 3 + questions of clarification (20 mins)
  • Discussion of all 3 papers – Discussant (suggest 10 mins max) + audience and speaker panel (15 mins)

Overall symposium outline (max 300 words)

Please use the following headings:

  1. Title – which must include the topic or methodological focus, and some indication of the purpose (max 30 words).
  2. Background – a brief statement of the scientific and policy background to the symposium papers.
  3. Papers – a brief narrative on why you have included the 3 papers and how they form a coherent programme.
  4. Team – state the title, name and current role of the chair and discussant.

Abstracts for symposium papers (max 400 words each)

When submitting a symposium, the form will require you to complete a paper abstract for each of the 3 symposium papers. For this, please use the same guidance as for ‘Oral and poster sessions: individual papers’ below.

Oral and poster sessions: individual papers

Please complete the application form for each scientific paper you wish to submit for inclusion in a parallel oral session or poster session. You can also use this guidance for symposium papers (see above).

Parallel sessions will last 90 mins and include 4 papers. Each presenter will have 15 minutes to present + 5 minutes for questions/discussion.

Posters will be included in chaired, themed sessions and authors will be expected to present their poster in 5 minutes.

Title (max 30 words)

Please provide an informative and concise title that accurately summarises the work. For example, does it accurately describe the population to be studied, the study design and/or method of data collection/analysis, the research objective or question, the primary outcome(s) and the intervention and comparator if appropriate. The PICOT format may be helpful: Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Timeframe).

Authors

firstname lastname of each author, separated by commas, in the order you wish them to appear in the programme. Please put the name of the presenting author(s) in CAPS.

Abstract (max 400 words).

Please review the criteria on which abstracts will be judged before completing this form. Authors can include one exhibit (table, figure or box), but no references. Please use the following headings:

  1. Background – provide a brief description of the rationale for the work, making clear the gap in knowledge that it aims to fill. State clearly the purpose of the work (objectives, hypothesis or research questions).
  2. Methods – provide a clear statement of the methods used, including the study design, data collection methods, analytical methods, etc.
  3. Results – provide a concise summary of the results. Include sample findings (e.g. quantitative effect sizes, qualitative themes) where these are available. Where results are not yet available, please state clearly when the last data will be collected/when the data will be analysed, and what data you expect to be able to present.
  4. Conclusions – state the conclusions of the research clearly and concisely. Ensure they reflect the aims and objectives and are supported by the results presented. State what this work adds to current knowledge and the implications for policy, practice or further research, as appropriate.

Go to the TUKFS26 Abstract Submission Form.

Any individual may submit one individual paper, and one symposium or workshop as lead author. However, any individual may be a co-author on multiple papers, symposia or workshops.