Reviewer Feedback for Abstract Submissions to the Pediatric Academic Societies Meeting: A Pilot Project

Published:March 19, 2022DOI:



      To describe and evaluate a pilot project to provide reviewer comments to authors who submitted abstracts to the Hospital-based medicine topic area for the Pediatric Academic Societies (PAS) 2021 annual meeting


      Abstract reviewers were encouraged via email to include reviewer comments for authors in their abstract reviews. Unedited comments were emailed to authors shortly after the abstract decision notifications were sent. We quantified the number of reviewers who commented per abstract. Additionally, we surveyed authors and reviewers to evaluate the perceived impact of the pilot project.


      For 123 abstracts submitted to the Hospital-based medicine topic area, every abstract received comments from at least one reviewer, and a median (IQR) of 4 (3–5) reviewers commented per abstract. The response rates for the author and reviewer surveys were 61/114 (54%) and 54/84 (64%), respectively, and both groups of respondents generally favored the pilot program. The majority of authors (59%) made changes to their project based on the feedback provided and 96% reported that they would like to continue to receive reviewer feedback for future PAS abstract submissions. Reviewers reported spending a mean of 11 minutes reviewing each abstract. Most (85%) felt that they spent the same or slightly more (1%–25%) time reviewing than in prior years. Multiple open-ended comments were provided, largely positive.


      A pilot program to incorporate reviewer feedback into abstract decision notification for a large national research meeting was successful. This approach should be considered for future meetings to enhance this integral component of academic development.


      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'


      Subscribe to Academic Pediatrics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect


        • Kelly JA
        Scientific meeting abstracts: significance, access, and trends.
        Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1998; 86: 68-76
        • Carroll AE
        • Sox CM
        • Tarini BA
        • et al.
        Does presentation format at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting predict subsequent publication?.
        Pediatrics. 2003; 112: 1238-1241
        • Hopewell S
        • Collins GS
        • Boutron I
        • et al.
        Impact of peer review on reports of randomised trials published in open peer review journals: retrospective before and after study.
        BMJ. 2014; 349: g4145
        • Kelly J
        • Sadeghieh T
        • Adeli K
        Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide.
        EJIFCC. 2014; 25: 227-243
        • Herrmann LE
        • Hall M
        • Kyler K
        • et al.
        The pipeline from abstract presentation to publication in Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
        J Hosp Med. 2018; 13: 90-95
        • Scherer RW
        • Meerpohl JJ
        • Pfeifer N
        • et al.
        Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; 11MR000005