All abstracts submitted to ICOS Science Conference 2024 are subject to a double anonymous review process – the submitter does not know who will review their abstract, and the reviewer does not see who wrote the abstract.
“We have been using a double anonymous review system for some time now, and it isn’t a new concept,” outlines Janne-Markus Rintala, Science Officer at the ICOS Head Office and part of the Science Conference organising team.
One of the organising principles of ICOS Science Conference is the fact that abstract reviewers are the session convenors themselves. While their names are listed publicly, it is not clear which individual will evaluate a submission.
“Having the session convenors committed to reviewing the abstracts ensures that the ICOS community is engaged in organising the conference,” Janne continues. “Our session convenors make excellent reviewers because they are leading experts in their fields. That means they keep abreast of the latest scientific literature and state-of-the-art technologies, meaning they are capable of rating the findings of each abstract.”
Providing a platform for early career scientists
What are some of the benefits of such a system?
Limiting the effect of bias is one such benefit. Janne points out that “despite our best intentions, everyone has their biases. We may have a preference towards certain individuals in the field, institutions or research teams. By removing personal and institutional information all abstracts can be treated fairly and assessed on their scientific merit.”
A benefit of this is that scientists at very early stages of their careers can be given the opportunity to deliver a plenary talk. “This is precisely what happened at ICOS Science Conference 2020,” says Janne. “Julia Kelly – a PhD student at the time - submitted an abstract that received a very high score. When deliberating with the ICOS Science Conference Programme Committee – the expert body which helps create the final programme – it was decided to give Julia a plenary talk.”
What’s new this year
The ICOS Science Conference team is always looking to improve the abstract review process. One new inclusion to this year’s abstract submission form is the option to indicate whether the abstract author is an early career scientist.
Evaluated abstracts are given a rank which helps determine whether the author will be given an oral slot.
“Once all the scores and overall results from the abstract review process have come in, these are openly discussed with the ICOS Science Conference Programme Committee. After this deliberation, we will make a decision regarding which abstracts are offered an oral presentation,” Janne explains.
Authors are offered oral slots based on this deliberation but are not obliged to accept it. Some presenters prefer to deliver a poster presentation for many reasons, such as to garner feedback over the whole duration of the conference or because their results are very preliminary.
“Occasionally, after all the abstracts are reviewed, we can end up having several abstracts with an equal ranking,” explains Janne. The Programme Committee will then work with the evaluation results to determine who will be offered an oral slot. “By including this option to indicate if the corresponding author is an early career scientist, the Programme Committee may use this information to ‘break the deadlock’ between two abstracts with an equal score and take the decision to advance an early career scientist. This would give them an opportunity to gain valuable experience by delivering an oral presentation in front of a wide audience. The hope here is that we would somehow boost or at least support their career.”
At its core, the double anonymous review system is about respecting the integrity of science. “Our anonymous evaluation method mirrors the processes used in any peer-reviewed academic journal. Placing science over status reflects the core values of ICOS,” Janne concludes.
Are you thinking about submitting an abstract to ICOS Science Conference 2024? Take a look at our session themes here.