top of page

2015 Call For Papers

 

Submission topics, important dates, guidelines and instructions for how to prepare and submit your abstract online for a full-day pre-conference workshop, half-day conference workshop, 30 or 60 minute standing oral presentation, and/or poster presentation are provided here.

Presentation Topics

 

We will be soliciting for presentations that focus on, but are not limited to:

  • Adjunctive modalities of intervention (e.g. biofeedback, nutrition, etc.) in combination with neurofeedback

  • Quantitative electroencephalography analysis as well as other neuroimaging techniques

  • Neuromodulation assessment and intervention techniques

  • Therapeutic applications

  • Clinical reports and data indicating the efficacy and efficiency of using neurofeedback in the treatment of a wide range of cognitive disorders and conditions

  • Topics of interest include: ADHD, ASD, Seizures, Depression, Migraines and Peak Performance

 

WHY YOU SHOULD PRESENT:

  • Contribute to and Learn about the Most Recent Advances in YOUR Profession

  • Advocate for Your Field

  • Share your Knowledge

  • Network with Others in Your Profession

  • Collaborate and Share Data to Provide Solutions that Serve the Profession

  • Students—Share Your Dissertation or Thesis Project

 

IMPORTANT DATES:

Deadline for all submissions: April 30, 2015

Notification of Acceptance/Rejection: May 29, 2015

Schedule published: June 30, 2015

Presentation Topics

Preparing Your Abstract

Please review the submission guidelines, review process, review criteria and scoring, terms and conditions, and abstract submission instructions by clicking each link below to ensure that you prepare a dynamic abstract submission.

 

To prepare your abstract for online submission, please carefully review the submission guidelines in its entirety which includes important information about student submissions, the abstract review process, review criteria and scoring rubric, speaker terms and conditions, and submission instructions to prepare an abstract for a full day pre-conference workshop, half-day conference workshop, 30 or 60 minute standing oral presentation, and/or poster presentation.

To increase transparency and to ensure that only high-quality abstracts are submitted for the 23rd Annual ISNR Conference, we have posted the review criteria and scoring rubric so you can develop your abstract accordingly.

All abstract submitters/co-authors must agree to the Terms and Conditions in order for their abstract to be considered by the Review Committee.

Preparing Your Abstract

Abstract Review Committee Criteria and Scoring Rubric

 

ISNR is interested in accepting the highest quality abstracts for the conference. The reviewers are responsible for facilitating this process. The following are some guidelines and recommendations for the reviewers to keep in mind as they read through and score each of the abstracts. Understanding the reviewers’ criteria and scoring rubric will help you develop a distinctive abstract.

 

  • There will be a minimum of 3 reviewers per abstract. The number you will be asked to review will depend upon the number of abstract submissions received from the Call for Participation.

  • The author of the abstract will remain “blind” or anonymous.

  • Be as objective as possible and not biased towards or against certain subjects or topics.

  • Read over all - or at least a few - abstracts before you grade any of them. This will give you a general overview prior to the assignment of individual scores (see below).

  • Read each abstract more than once.

  • Take notes on strengths and weaknesses, questions, concerns and overall impression of the abstract. Keep in mind that each abstract will be short (300-500 words) and may not contain all of the details.

  • Think about how complete the abstract is and whether or not it would make a good presentation at the conference.

  • Is the approach of the abstract appropriate for the conference? Research? Therapeutic? Theory?

  • Does the research support the abstract?

  • What is your overall impression of the abstract? Is it well-written? Organized? Are references complete? Does it have the potential to stimulate further knowledge? Does it move the field forward in this area?

  • Once complete, review your own review. Does your score for the abstract accurately reflect your overall impression?

  • Remember that this process is very time sensitive so please complete the reviews as quickly and accurately as possible.

  • Think and do your best!

 

Scoring Rubric

Look at the scoring rubric (6 questions – see below) and determine what the criteria is and how it is scored. Please use this scale of 1 to 5, with 1 indicating ‘Weak’ and 5 indicating ‘Excellent’ as follows:                        

1 = Weak = D or F                       

2 = Fair = C (not good enough for a professional conference)                       

3 = Good = B                       

4 = Very Good = A- or A                       

5 = Excellent = A+ 

 

6 Questions (each worth a maximum of 5 points for a maximum score of 30 total points available):

1)      TITLE: Does the wording in the title describe the ideas presented in the abstract? Is the title accurately succinct or too lengthy? Does the title succeed in arousing the reader’s interest?

 

2)      HYPOTHESIS/JUSTIFICATION: Is the hypothesis or justification for the importance of the descriptive work explicitly stated in the abstract? Does the abstract propose an idea that is novel or of value to the field?

 

3)      SUPPORT: Does the abstract provide information to justify the hypothesis or to confirm the validity of the justification? Is the abstract clearly written and logically organized with all references properly cited?

 

4)      METHODS: Are the basics of the experimental design described? To the best of your knowledge, are the methods of research appropriate and correctly executed? If replication is mentioned, are the sample sizes large enough to be convincing? Does the abstract explicitly articulate a strong connection to existing research?

 

5)      RESULTS: Keeping in mind that many presenters may not have their data yet, does the abstract briefly summarize the results of the study? Is the focus on results specifically relevant to the hypothesis and/or results suggesting something equally important?

 

6)      CONCLUSION: Does the abstract strongly present the purpose of the study and articulate the findings or the implications that are likely to arise from the researcher’s anticipated findings? This should be some sort of context for the results as well as the relationship of the information to other facts. Are the important points stated in a clear manner?

Review Criteria
Scoring Rubric

Terms and Conditions

Submission Authors and Presenters agree to these Terms and Conditions:
 

  • Pre-conference workshop, conference workshop and standing presentation submission authors/presenters agree to grant permission for their workshop or presentation to be audio and video recorded by ISNR and further agree to release all rights to ISNR related to the contents of this recording, its distribution, sale, reproduction, broadcast in whole or in part and without limitation or compensation.

  • Each author/presenter of accepted pre-conference workshops, conference workshops and standing presentations agree to sign an ISNR audio/video recording release form.

  •  Workshop presenters must be ISNR members in good standing.

  • A maximum of 2 abstracts per presenting author may be submitted in each category (pre-conference workshops, workshops, standing presentations).

    • 30 or 60 minute Standing Oral Presentations which have been presented at the previous year’s conference, will not be accepted (e.g., if a 30 or 60 minute presentation was presented at our 2014 conference, the same work will NOT be accepted for the 2015 conference).

  •  If you are accepted and you cancel your presentation you will not be permitted to submit for the following year.  

  • All presenters will complete conflict of interest statements that will permit them to disclose their commercial and other involvements that pertain to the content of their presentations.

  •  Presentations provided as part of the annual conference will be provided in consultation and agreement with the conference committee.

  • The content of all education provided will be reviewed prior to its implementation.

  • The content of all courses will be reviewed at their completion to assure that all objectives and content were delivered as anticipated.

  • All education provided will be free of commercial bias, attempts to sell equipment, or advocate for particular software or equipment. The only exception to this will be courses that are specifically geared towards a particular treatment approach.

  • Presenters may provide basic contact information, a description of relevant services they offer and how they might be contacted. Otherwise, solicitation or sales during an educational presentation will be strictly prohibited.

  • All opinions and views expressed by presenters should be tied to scientific findings, to the degree that this is possible.

Terms and conditions
bottom of page