ISOO Abstract Review Criteria

Each ISOO conference assigns a dedicated committee of ISOO members to oversee the abstract review process. All submitted abstracts are reviewed through a blinded process—reviewers do not have access to any identifying information about the authors or their institutions.

To ensure fairness and quality, each abstract is reviewed by multiple independent reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the abstracts based on the criteria outlined below. The highest possible score is 25 points, based on five categories rated from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest).

Review Criteria

1. Originality of Content
Does the abstract present novel findings or a unique perspective?
Reviewers assess the originality of the hypothesis, techniques, or insights presented.

  • 1 = Lacks originality or replicates existing work

  • 3 = Moderately original; some new contribution

  • 5 = Highly original and innovative

2. Methodology
Is the study design clear and appropriate?
Reviewers evaluate the quality of the approach, the use of proper techniques, and the clarity of data reporting.

  • 1 = Flawed or unclear methods

  • 3 = Acceptable methods with minor issues

  • 5 = Robust, well-described, and appropriate methods

3. Scientific Content
How strong and relevant is the scientific contribution?
Reviewers consider the validity of the conclusions and their relevance to the field of ocular oncology.

  • 1 = Weak or unsupported conclusions

  • 3 = Moderate strength and clarity

  • 5 = Strong scientific basis and compelling evidence

4. Presentation Quality
Is the abstract well-written and well-organized?
Reviewers assess clarity, grammar, structure, and overall readability.

  • 1 = Poorly written or difficult to follow

  • 3 = Adequately presented with minor clarity issues

  • 5 = Clear, concise, and well-structured

5. Overall Impact
What is the potential contribution to the field?
Reviewers evaluate the potential of the work to influence clinical practice, research, or future studies.

  • 1 = Minimal impact

  • 3 = Moderate contribution

  • 5 = High impact with potential to influence practice or research

Presentation Recommendation

In addition to scoring, reviewers may also recommend the most suitable format for presentation:

  • Full Podium

  • Short Podium

  • Poster

  • Online Presentation

These recommendations help guide the final placement of abstracts within the ISOO program but do not affect the overall review score.