Criteria 1: Clarity of writing (includes adherence to the abstract preparation guidelines)
Unacceptable (0): The abstract is completely disorganised or jumbled and is difficult to comprehend.
Fair (1): The abstract makes sense, but the sentences are not well structured, or the language could be more concise and there are more than a few typos.
Good (2): The research / case study / practice is described in general terms and the language of the abstract is clear.
Excellent (3): The research / case / practice is clearly described, and the abstract is concise and well written using appropriate scientific language.
Criteria 2: Innovation / novel practice
Unacceptable (0): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract is not new or novel and has been described multiple times before.
Fair (1): The abstract outlines a somewhat novel topic or a new spin on previously seen work.
Good (2): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract is original or novel but is not fully realised in the abstract.
Excellent (3): The abstract describes a completely innovative or novel piece of work / topic which is of the utmost interest.
Criteria 3: Significance / Impact / Relevance to clinical practice
Unacceptable (0): The work described in the abstract has no or minimal impact on clinical practice.
Fair (1): The research / case / practice outlined in the abstract makes some reference to the practitioner’s role and the impact to clinical practice but is not explicit or is only applicable in the one setting.
Good (2): The work described in the abstract is a good example of how the practitioner is involved in practice and has widespread applicability.
Excellent (3): The work described in the abstract shows how the practitioner is leading practice and/or collaborating with other health professionals to maximise impact on patient care.
Criteria 4: Methodology (Research abstracts and Pharmacy Practice only)
Unacceptable (0): No aim or objective. Methods are unclear and there are no or limited results.
Fair (1): The aim/objective is unclear. The methods and results are present but are incomplete and/or superficial.
Good (2): The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective and the methods and results align with the aim.
Excellent (3): The work described in the abstract has a clear aim/objective which the method accurately tests. Results are comprehensive and align with the aim.
Criteria 4: Importance of the case (Case report abstracts only)
Unacceptable (0): There is no, or limited information presented about the patient and case. The case is of little interest.
Fair (1): The case reported is not well described and is of little interest or relevance to pharmacy practice.
Good (2): The case reported contains all relevant details and includes the practitioner’s role in the outcome or resolution.
Excellent (3): The abstract comprehensively outlines all relevant details of the case and the practitioner’s role and provides important lessons for clinical practice.