Research Abstract Writing Tips
The Program Committee will review abstracts based on the following scoring criteria. We encourage investigators to keep these criteria in mind when writing and editing an abstract. The committee also offers several tips and general advice for writing an abstract, which can be found in each of the attached guides for empirical abstracts and for conceptual / theoretical / normative abstracts.
Empirical Projects
Abstract reviewers will assign a score 1–5 for each criterion listed below. One represents the lowest possible score and 5 represents the highest possible score.
- Problem – Clearly articulate a neuroethics problem giving rise to a research question that drives the work.
- Background – Include relevant background information, and engage with extant literature.
- Methods – Employ and clearly identify research and/or theoretical methods appropriate for the problem and questions raised, including information about sample, recruitment, and analytic strategy.
- Results / Conclusions – Clearly present results (or, where not yet available, hypothesized or anticipated outcomes) and engage with ethical implications.
- Importance – Identify the importance to neuroethics of any conclusions drawn from.
Conceptual / Theoretical / Normative Projects
- Problem – Clearly articulate a neuroethics problem giving rise to a research question that drives the work.
- Background – Include relevant background information, and engage with extant literature.
- Argumentation – Employ and clearly identify research and/or theoretical methods appropriate for the problem and questions raised.
- Conclusions – Clearly describe the conclusions and engage with ethical implications.
- Importance – Identify the importance to neuroethics of any conclusions drawn or arguments advanced.
|
