May 16, 2018
October 18-21, 2018 • The Renaissance Hotel • Glendale, AZ
Make a submission today to contribute to the advancement of ISNR and neurofeedback!
Members requested one final extension of the deadline in order to accommodate a few additional submissions. Please note, this is the final extension and all submissions past this deadline will not be considered for acceptance into this year’s Annual Conference.
To begin your abstract submission, visit the submission page.
Call for papers has been EXTENDED TO NEXT MONDAY, MAY 21, 2018!!
Notifications will be made by July 2, 2018.
Important for 2018
The APA is no longer granting CE credit for 30-minute standing oral presentations; therefore, this submission type has been discontinued. Standing oral presentations that are 60-minutes in length are still being accepted for consideration by the ISNR Conference Committee.
This year, it is required that your abstract, citations, and references be prepared in APA Publication style, 6th ed. Only accepted abstracts which are properly formatted will be eligible for publication in NeuroRegulation (ISNR’s peer-reviewed, open-access journal) after the conference.
For more information, please see:
This is the rubric given to the reviewers. All abstracts are kept anonymous.
Please reference these guidelines as you craft your abstract for submission.
There will be 6 questions by which each abstract is graded. Each question is worth up to 5 points, making a total possible maximum score of 30 points. A score of 18 is the accept/reject bubble score. Total scores of 17 or below will be rejected.
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 suitable for a professional conference)
3 = Good = B
4 = Very Good = A- or A
5 = Excellent = A+
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 capturing 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?