Submissions

All submissions must comply with the following guidelines. Failure to observe these requirements may result in submission errors or rejection of the abstract during the review process.

1. Complete your submission by the deadline
   Abstracts received after the deadline will not be considered. Submit early to avoid heavy traffic at the deadline.
2. Do not submit an abstract on behalf of anyone other than yourself.
3. No duplicate abstracts
   Abstracts with the same title and/or content submitted under different categories will not be permitted.
4. Provide all required information
   The online submission form will be processed successfully only when data is provided in all fields marked “Required!”
5. Comply with the abstract size limitation
   Abstract text may be no longer than 3,000 characters (including spaces and punctuation).
6. Omit graphics, attachments, or other additional information
   Abstract submissions are limited to text only. The online submission form will accept only text in the Abstract field, and other submissions must comply with this requirement as well. No graphics, attachments or addenda will be considered.
7. Student Qualification
   An individual enrolled in at least nine (9) credit hours or the number of hours required by the institution for full-time status at an accredited educational institution. Proof of enrollment may be required upon application and each renewal.
8. Review submission confirmation messages
   A confirmation email will be sent out after the abstract is successfully submitted. If you have questions or problems with your submission, note the information in these messages and contact Education Services or call 303.347.6181 for assistance.
9. The conference planning committee will select submitted abstracts for oral presentations, poster sessions, workshops and special topic sessions. 

Abstract Ratings

For uniformity, the scale will be from 1 to 5 with the best abstracts rated 5. A rough guideline as to what constitutes a particular score is:

5 – A must-see for everyone and is a valuable abstract/presentation even for those that do not work in the particular area of study.
4 – A must-see for those that work in the same area.
3 – An average abstract/presentation that would hold the interest of those who work in the same area.
2 – A marginal abstract/presentation that would maintain the attention of only those that have vested interest in the particular work.
1 – A poorly constructed abstract/presentation that no one will want to see.

Rating Considerations

Below are the detailed guidelines provided to those volunteers reviewing abstracts. Consideration is given to originality, work status, technical content, benefits and significance, and abstract quality. 

Quality of Abstract

• What was the quality of work (good project design, appropriate applications, etc.)?
• Does it fit with the conference theme (refer to the last page for the call-for-abstracts)?
• The adequacy of an abstract is considered indicative of the quality of the final paper or poster and of the presentation at the conference.

Originality of Work

• Is it a hot topic? Does it present new information? If not, was it presented in at a previous conference (okay but not great) or at a forum that would attract a different audience (minor)? The worst case is a literature review (no data).
• Consider that the paper should deal with new concepts or novel applications of established concepts. It may describe substantial improvements of existing theories or present new data in support ofextension of these theories. Comparative/supportive data should be included.

Usefulness of Work

• Actual benefits and widespread applications should be reported. Is this an unusual case ortypical of general applications?
• Is the work useful to the water industry? Does it conclude anything new that otherwise would be ignored?
• Consider if the abstract demonstrates concrete results with practical applications.

Presentation

• Is it a sales pitch with no co-author who could speak to real-life pros/cons on the practical application of the technology/process/method (large negative impact)?
• Is there a local connection to the conference site (positive impact)?
• Is the presenter a dynamic speaker? Or a poor speaker?