Research and Education Abstract Evaluation Criteria

AACP Article

The Council of Sections (COS), which consists of the nine AACP Sections’ officers and an administrative board, is responsible for implementing the abstract review process. Abstracts are reviewed by the Section to which the abstract is submitted. The following criteria (point values in parentheses) are used to evaluate abstracts describing theoretical models and completed research. Abstracts describing works in progress are not eligible for presentation at the AACP Annual Meeting.

Categories of Work

Education Research and Research in the Discipline

Criterion 1: How important/novel is the work?

  • Excellent (3): This abstract describes novel approaches, methods and/or concepts. Rationale and significance are identified. 
  • Good (2): This abstract describes a novel approach, method, or concept but provides only a partial description of rationale and significance.
  • Fair (1): This abstract describes a somewhat novel topic and is lacking in clarity, significance or relevance.
  • Unacceptable (0): This abstract does not describe a novel topic of interest in educational or scientific research.

Criterion 2: How clearly does the abstract describe the research that was conducted? Clarity of writing.

  • Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract clearly describe the project and are well-written.
  • Good (2): The project is generally described but is otherwise clear.
  • Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and would be improved by minor revisions.
  • Unacceptable (0): The abstract would require revisions prior to publication.

Criterion 3: Do the study objectives address the hypothesis or research question?

  • Excellent (3): A study hypothesis or research question is stated. All objectives are clearly defined and appropriate.
  • Good (2): The hypothesis or research question must be inferred from the objectives. Objectives are moderately defined but appropriate.
  • Fair (1): No hypothesis or research question is given, and it is unclear if the objectives will address the hypothesis or research question.
  • Unacceptable (0): The objectives are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question or the objectives are not testable.

Criterion 4: Are the methods sound?

  • Excellent (3): The abstract provides a clear description of appropriate and sound methods.
  • Good (2): The abstract provides an adequate explanation of methods. There is room for improvement with proposed techniques.
  • Fair (1): The abstract provides an unorganized explanation or methods. It is uncertain if proposed data will be produced.
  • Unacceptable (0): Methods are not provided or are inappropriate for the hypothesis or research question and objectives.

Criterion 5: Are the conclusions consistent with the results?

  • Excellent (3): The conclusions are based on solid results provided in the abstract.
  • Good (2): The conclusions are not fully supported by the results provided in the abstract.
  • Fair (1): The conclusions are not clearly stated or results to support the conclusions are not solid.
  • Unacceptable (0): The conclusions are not at all correlated with the results.

Educational Development and Innovation and Administrative and/or Broad Programmatic Issues 

Criterion 1: Are new approaches described that will help other educators and/or administrators to implement a similar program, course, or initiative?

  • Excellent (3): The program, course, or initiative described will likely make a significant contribution to advancing pharmacy education and have broad appeal to meeting attendees.
  • Good (2): The program, course, or initiative will likely contribute to pharmacy education and may be of interest to a large audience.
  • Fair (1): The program, course, or initiative will likely make a small contribution to pharmacy education but may be of limited interest to meeting attendees.
  • Unacceptable (0): The program, course, or initiative will likely not contribute to pharmacy education and will not be of interest to meeting attendees.

Criterion 2: How clearly does the abstract describe the program, course, or initiative? Clarity of writing.

  • Excellent (3): All sections of the abstract are well-written and clearly describes the program, course, or initiative.
  • Good (2): The program, course, or initiative is generally described but is otherwise clear.
  • Fair (1): The abstract is somewhat clear and would be improved by minor revisions.
  • Unacceptable (0): The abstract would require revisions prior to publication.

Criterion 3: Was the work conducted in a scholarly manner, including consideration of potential advantages and disadvantages of the approach? 

  • Excellent (3): Work was conducted a scholarly manner that is grounded in evidence. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are described.
  • Good (2): Some evidence that work was conducted in a scholarly manner. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are partly addressed.
  • Fair (1): Development of the program, course, or initiative needs improvement to be considered scholarly. Advantages and disadvantages of the approach are unclear.
  • Unacceptable (0): Development of the program, course, or initiative was not conducted in a scholarly manner. No discussion of advantages or disadvantages to support development of the program, course, or initiative. 

Criterion 4: Does the abstract describe how the program, course, or initiative was assessed?

  • Excellent (3): An appropriate and sound method of assessment of the program, course, or initiative is described.
  • Good (2): An adequately appropriate assessment of the program, course, or initiative is described.  
  • Fair (1): Assessment of the program, course, or initiative is unclear or has room for improvement.
  • Unacceptable (0): Assessment of the program, course, or initiative is missing.

Criterion 5: Do the results describe evidence regarding success or failure of the program, course, or initiative?

  • Excellent (3): The results provide detailed evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Good (2): The results partially address the success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Fair (1): The results vaguely describe success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.
  • Unacceptable (0): The results do not provide any evidence of success or failure of the program, course, or initiative.

Criterion 6: Do results of the program, course, or initiative support the conclusions?

  • Excellent (3): The conclusions of the abstract are fully supported by the results.
  • Good (2): The conclusions are generally discussed or mostly supported by the results.
  • Fair (1): Conclusions are limited or are only partially supported by the results.
  • Unacceptable (0): Conclusions are missing or not at all supported by the results.