Abstract submission information

All abstracts must be submitted through our abstract submission system provided by Hyperion Live Ltd. You will need to create an account on the system first to submit your abstract. Once logged in you will be able to create a new submission(s) and you can continue to log in and make amends to your abstract(s) until the deadline. If you have any issues or queries when submitting your abstract, please contact events@physoc.org.

Abstracts can be submitted in one of the following categories:

1. Original research
   This should include original data
2. Case study
   This does not need to include original data but normally would contain information on numbers of papers/trials/studies analysed
3. Systematic reviews (including qualitative research)
   This does not need to include original data but normally would contain information on numbers of papers/trials/studies analysed
4. Technical paper (e.g. methods)
   This does not mean a proposal of what will be done but must discuss how the method has already been used with data where appropriate

Following the closing date for submissions, each abstract will be reviewed by the Scientific Programme Organisers via Hyperion, the abstract submission platform.

The Scientific Programme Organisers are provided with review guidance by the Events Team which is agreed by The Society’s Scientific Conferences Committee.

However, for any type of abstract, submitters must:

• Include appropriate statistical analysis including n numbers
• Include appropriate structure including introduction, aims and objectives, method, results, and conclusions
• Be compliant with ethical standards

Presenting new findings 

The Society encourages the presentation of unpublished data as this is often of interest. If you do not feel able to disclose key details e.g. drug name then your abstract may be rejected, unless you ask for a confidential review. For those that are accepted, presenters can request a ‘no photography’ logo from The Society to include on their presentation slides.  

Presenting negative data

The Society encourages the presentation of negative, null or neutral results. Akin to positive data, this must be technically sound and be the result of rigorously designed, executed and analysed studies and demonstrate high scientific impact.

Your submission will be assessed on the following expectations: 

1. That your abstract falls into one of these categories.  
   
   • Original research – this should include original data 
   • Systematic review (including qualitative research) – this does not need to include original data but normally would contain information on numbers of papers/trials/studies analysed 
   • Technical paper (e.g. methods) – this does not mean a proposal of what will be done but must discuss how the method has already been used with data where appropriate 
   • Case study 
2. Appropriate statistical analysis including n numbers is included
3. Appropriate structure including introduction, aims/objectives, method, results and conclusions are included
4. Ethical standards are met 

Grounds for Accept and Reject decisions

ACCEPT
The abstract is:
(1) both scientifically and ethically sound
or
(2) scientifically sound but raises ethical concerns that require straightforward/minor clarification

REJECT
The abstract is unacceptable:
(1) Ethical grounds (i.e. experiments have been conducted on animals or human subjects in a manner that would not have been granted approval under current UK legislation)
or
(2) Scientific grounds (e.g. the work contains evidence of potential fraud or plagiarism, or is written in a manner that is unintelligible or claims to report findings that do not contribute to the understanding and knowledge of physiological processes).

Please note, any requirements indicated on the specific event page supersede these guidelines.

For two-day focused meetings, if an abstract is considered out of scope of the meeting, the Scientific Programme Organisers can make a recommendation to not include it for presentation and as such in the proceedings for the meeting.

In the first instance, submitters will be given the opportunity to revise the abstract to increase its relevance to the topic of the meeting, even if the abstract deadline has passed. The Scientific Programme Organisers will offer guidance on how this could be achieved. The Events Team will contact the submitter. Submitters will be given five working days to revise their abstract.

The revised abstract will then be reviewed again by the Scientific Programme Organisers. If the revised is now considered within the scope of the meeting, it will be included as a poster presentation only.

If the submitter chooses to not revise their abstract or the revised abstract is still not considered to be within scope, it will be sent for further independent review by Scientific Conferences Committee.

Two members of The Society’s Scientific Conferences Committee with appropriate expertise, together with the Chair, will independently review the abstract and its suitability for the meeting within five working days. This is to ensure an open and transparent process. If during this review the revised is considered within the scope of the meeting, it will be included as a poster presentation only.

If during this final, independent, review Scientific Conferences Committee agree with the Scientific Programme Organisers that the abstract is considered out of scope, then the submitter will be encouraged to submit to a more appropriate meeting. If no such meeting is scheduled, submitters will be encouraged to submit to the next general meeting.

The abstract will not be included for presentation at this meeting or in the proceedings.

An abstract is a short summary of your experiment/research. Like a paper it should contain an introduction, methods, results and conclusions (although these actual headings are not required). If done well, it makes the reader want to learn more about your research.  

Components of an abstract 

These are the basic components of an abstract in any discipline: 

1. Motivation/problem statement: What are you studying? Why do we care about the problem? What practical, scientific gap is your research filling? 
2. Methods/procedure/approach: What did you actually do to get your results?  
3. Results: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn?  
4. Conclusion/implications: What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem/gap identified in step 1? 

Many abstracts will also feature tables, figures, abbreviations and references. 

The writing process 

It helps to write your abstract section by section to make sure that it is complete. At this stage, don’t worry too much about any length requirements for the abstract. After writing the first draft, check to see if it fits within any length restrictions you have been given. If it is too long (which is usually the case at this stage), check to see where it could be made more concise. Remove redundancies and unnecessary details and substitute wordy passages for concise phrases. Ask a colleague or supervisor to read the abstract and offer feedback. They can often help pinpoint text that is confusing or redundant. Finally, make sure to spell check and proofread carefully.  

The word limit is 35 words. 

The title must be brief and indicate clearly the nature of the investigation. 

Enter the title in SENTENCE case. Do NOT use all capital letters for the title. 

Formatting must ONLY be added to the title to include any superscripts and subscripts. Abbreviations must not be used in the title. 

The word limit is 500 words.  

There is no requirement to include full experimental protocols. However, sufficient information must be given within the text, or by reference to published work, to indicate how the experiments were performed. In addition, please note the specific details required by The Society on experiments with animals, animal tissues, humans or human tissues. 

Authors must include within the abstract a clear description of the results and all the appropriate data to support any conclusion they wish to make; an abstract without supporting data will be rejected.  

Sufficient data should be provided to support the conclusions. The following values should be included if appropriate: 

• n numbers 
• summary measures and statistical significance e.g. mean/median and S.E.M./S.D. 
• statistical significance (appropriate test specified) 
• number of replicates for non-numerical data e.g. Western blots, immunocytochemistry, etc. 

At the meeting, authors are expected to present within their Communication all the data described in the abstract. 

All abbreviations must be explained within the text, except those that are listed in the online version of the Instructions to Authors for The Journal of Physiology.

Abbreviations should be those accepted in the field; new abbreviations should be avoided whenever possible. Authors are reminded that a large number of abbreviations within an abstract can detract from its sense. 

An abstract may be rejected if the science is obscured by poor English. Authors who are not confident about writing in English should have their text checked by a competent English speaker. 

Tables, figures and images can all be submitted in the online submission form. 

 The good features of a table are: 

• it is numbered 
• the legend explains key details of the experiment 
• error terms such as standard deviation are clearly stated 
• it explains the meaning of unusual abbreviations 
• Tables should provide enough information on what statistical test and significance level were used 

The good features of a figure are: 

• it has clearly labelled axes 
• informative legends 
• it has simple symbols/colour codes that can be readily distinguished for different treatment groups 

• its font sizes and line thicknesses are sufficiently large/bold to read 
• it is self-contained 

It is important to upload a figure with enough detail to be acceptable for print. You are able to check this at the proof stage during abstract submission.   

Please consider that some people in attendance at our meetings may suffer with a form of colour-blindness. Any images included in an abstract should be screened to ensure that they are accessible for a person experiencing any one of the three types of colour-blindness. 

Below are some top tips from a report written by Masataka Okabe (King’s College London, UK / National Institute of Genetics, Japan) and Kei Ito (University of Tokyo, Institute for Molecular and Cellular Biosciences, Japan): 

• In fluorescent double-staining micrographs, DNA chips etc. do not use the combination of red and green. Use magenta (purple) and green instead. Colour-blind individuals often struggle to see a distinction between red and other colours in images. By changing the red to magenta, those suffering with colour-blindness will be able to distinguish the different colours of the image. 
• For micrographs with three or more channels ensure that you include either a greyscale picture of each channel, or the combination of most important two channels in magenta and green. 
• Where possible, avoid conveying information in colour only. Show difference BOTH in colour and shape (solid and dotted lines, different symbols etc.). 
• For graphs and line drawings, label elements of the graph on the graph itself rather than colour coding them.

Okabe and Ito’s full report can be found here. 

A maximum of five references are allowed.   

Formatting references example: Lancaster MK et al. (2002). J Physiol 544P, 48P or Rigg L & Terrar DA (1996). Exp Physiol 81, 877-880. 

After entering all authors, YOU MUST put them in the order they should appear on the abstract in the publication. You can do this by dragging each author box into the correct order. Failure to properly order the authors will result in their being incorrectly listed when/if the abstract is published. You must also identify the presenting author. 

It is extremely important that you properly categorise your abstract so that it will go to the appropriate review group.

Authors will be required to confirm that certain ethical standards are met.

For work conducted in the UK, all procedures accorded with current UK legislation.

For work conducted elsewhere, all procedures accorded with current national legislation/guidelines or, in their absence, with current local guidelines.

It is a requirement that all vertebrates (and Octopus vulgaris) used in experiments are humanely treated and, where relevant, humanely killed.

Abstracts must state the type of animal used (common name or genus, including man. Where applicable, abstracts must specify the anaesthetics used, and their doses and route of administration, for all experimental procedures (including preparative surgery, e.g. ovariectomy, decerebration, etc.).

For experiments involving neuromuscular blockade, the abstract must give the type and dose, plus the methods used to monitor the adequacy of anaesthesia during blockade (or refer to a paper with these details).

For the preparation of isolated tissues, including primary cultures and brain slices, the method of killing (e.g. terminal anaesthesia) is required only if scientifically relevant.

In experiments where genes are expressed in Xenopus oocytes, full details of the oocyte collection are not necessary.

To be acceptable for publication, experiments on living vertebrates and Octopus vulgaris must conform with the ethical requirements of The Society regarding relevant authorisation, as indicated in the final step of submission.

All procedures accorded with the ethical standards of the relevant national, institutional or other body responsible for human research and experimentation, and with the principles of the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Helsinki.

All procedures on human subjects or human tissue must accord with the ethical requirements of The Society regarding relevant authorisation, as indicated at the final step of submission where authors must tick the appropriate box to indicate compliance.