MEMORANDUM

TO:2011Collection System Specialty ConferenceAbstract Reviewers

FROM:Renee Kayal, Program Manager, Technical & Educational Programs, Dan Murray, WEF CSC Technical Program Set-up

DATE:September 23, 2010

RE:Review of Abstracts due October 11, 2010

On behalf of WEF and the Collection Systems Specialty Conference Committee, thank you for agreeing to review abstracts for the 2011Collection Systems Conference. The conference will be held June12 – 15, 2011 in Raleigh, North Carolina

This year the 158 submitted abstracts have been scanned into clearly labeled .pdf files (sorted numerically and by topic). You will need to download these for your review process. The site is provided below. If you have any difficulties getting the files or questions regarding the review please contact Jenn Chavira at or by phone at 703-684-2400 ext. 7450 or Renee Kayal at or by phone at 703-684-2473

Included withthis email is a Rating Sheet in Excel to record your scores and the criteria you should use for rating each abstract. Each paper will have a maximum score of 35. Please make sure you clearly note your top 70 papers in the designated column. To denote your top 70 papers, simply enter the number 1 for each paper you select. (You will have a total of 70 rows with “1” in them when you complete this column. This is a very important step in the scoring process required to be completed by everyone.

Unless an abstract poses a conflict of interest (e.g., you are the author), please review each abstract on its potential for being a quality paper. Each reviewer is required to review every abstract submitted to keep the evaluation process fair.Please note any concerns in the comments column. (i.e., “sales pitch”, duplicate submittal, same topic). Included with this email is the speaker reviews from Phoenix for your reference. These may be utilized after your review and utilized in selecting your top 70.

As you review the abstracts please be alert to natural combinations for sessions based either on topics, geographic location, or even agencies/private groups. Some authors indicated a suggested topic or multiple topics. On the Rating Sheet make a note if you believe the final paper belongs in another session topic. If you believe certain papers could be combined to make logical sessions please note that on the Rating Sheet as well.

Please review each abstract using the seven criteria described below. Please note that a two page limit, with one additional graphic page was permitted for each abstract submittal.

STATE PURPOSE – What message or knowledge transfer will be provided – was this stated?

BENEFITS OF PROJECT –Does the abstract state clearly why this project should be selected and what benefits the presentation will provide to our industry? Is it unique, new technology, a different spin on an old concept, etc?

STATUS OF THE COMPLETION –Did the abstract establish that the concept is well-developed and present data or results to support the hypothesis? Data should have been subjected to preliminary analysis, at a minimum. Preference will be given to abstracts showing concrete results with practical applications.

CONCLUSION – Did the abstractstate clearly the take away message? Example: If several products or methods are being evaluated, there should be a definitive conclusion stated in theabstract as to why one waschosen over the others.

ORIGINALITY–Does the abstract deal with new concepts or novel applications of established concepts?This may be describedby substantial improvements of existing theories or presented new data in support and extension of these theories. Comparative or supportive data should be included. Incorporation of original applications of sustainability concepts is encouraged.

TECHNICAL CONTENT - Objectives and scope of the concept should be stated and the conditions under which the data were obtained and general procedures/methodology used should be presented. Conclusions should be drawn directly from the investigation.

QUALITY - The adequacy of an abstract is considered indicative of the quality of the final paper and of the presentation at the conference. Authors should prepare their abstracts with care, paying attention to style, organization of the abstract, and accuracy of the data presented. In addition, during all WEF conferences individual presentations, including visual aids, are monitored. The quality of prior presentations is considered in judging current submissions

These categories are to be considered as equally weighted in the evaluation process. Each of the categories will be given a score of 1 [worst] to 5 [best]. The table below provides a suggested interpretation on the differences between these relative scores.

Suggested Scales for Abstract Evaluation
Scoring Level / State Purpose / Benefits of Project / Status of Completion / Conclusion / Originality / Technical Content / Quality
1 / No / Minimal Interest to Audience / Just an Idea, No Plan or Results to Evaluate / None Provided / Nothing New / Concept Only / Poor Abstract
2 / Modest Benefit to Audience / Well Developed Idea and Plan, No Results / Provided but no supporting reason/ documentation / Chance of Small Improvement / Well Defined Concept and Clear Objectives / Some text, no tables or figures
3 / Modest Benefit to Broad Audience / Interesting Results, Much Work Remaining / Provided, minimal supporting data / Modest Incremental Improvement / Well Defined Concept, Clear Objectives and Methods / Includes text and either table or figure
4 / High Interest and Benefit to Focused Audience / Preliminary Results Demonstrating Good Potential for Success / Provided,
supporting documentation, / Very Significant Incremental Improvement / Clear Objectives and Methods. Outcomes Suggested, Not Fully Described / Text, figures and tables presented, some not clear and/or readable
5 / Yes / Broad Benefits to Broad Audience / Idea Fully Developed, Plan Completed, Documented Results / Alternatives were evaluated and specific data was given to support decision / Potential Breakthrough / Clear Objectives, Methods Described, and (Anticipated) Conclusions Outlined / Clear text, high quality figures and tables

Please keep in mind the key items below as you complete your spreadsheet:

  • Use a scale of 1 through 5, you may use .5 increments i.e. 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5, do not use a zero.
  • If you or your company is involved in a submittal please recues yourself from scoring the abstract. You should enter “N/A” on the spreadsheet with an explanation in the comment column.
  • Please do not alter the spreadsheet in any way before returning it to WEF
  • When you have completed your reviews, please save your Excel Rating Sheet with your last name in the title and email it to no later than September 24, 2010.

If you misplace the Rating Sheet that is attached to this email please contact WEF for a replacement document to assist in ease of tabulation. If you are not able to review your abstracts due to unforeseen circumstances, please let me know as soon as possible. Our schedule is as follows:

Task / Date
October 11th / Abstract Review Scores Due to WEF
October 15th / Review Scores Distributed to Committee
October 18 -22nd / Draft Conference Program Set and call
October 31st / FINAL Conference Program Set
Early November / Authors Notified of Acceptance

Thank you and best Regards,

Renee Kayal and Dan Murray