Submission guidelines

Symposium submission form

Abstract submission guidelines and information

INEBRIA is a network of people with common interests and aspirations for brief interventions. Our aims and objectives require us to help raise standards of brief interventions research.

Abstracts on any aspects of screening and brief interventions (SBI, also known as Early Identification and Brief Intervention (EIBI)) for alcohol and other drugs use are welcomed.

In accordance with this year’s conference theme, we strongly encourage submissions that present work on innovative methods that take the intricacy of SBI into account and integrate combinations of delivery modes, on new models and theoretical approaches that delineate intervention content, by using current information technologies, unique settings and target populations (such as SBI in the context of harm reduction within vulnerable populations).

The network would like to be as inclusive as possible and conferences are perhaps the best way INEBRIA has to raise the quality of research by enabling people to learn from more experienced researchers and make valuable contacts. Thus, these submission rules are not meant to prevent people from attending our conferences but we do encourage you to submit worthwhile pieces of work of sufficient quality to warrant international attention, and thus as far as possible, meet the standards of prestigious peer-reviewed journals. Current direct employment by the corporate alcohol industry precludes individuals from presenting anything at INEBRIA.

All submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the scientific committee. Abstracts will be reviewed independently and in duplicate. When reviewing, special attention will be paid to the following criteria:

  • Clarity (interpretability)
  • Originality
  • Importance to the field of brief intervention

Three types of abstracts will be considered (300 word limit—see submission form):

  • Research
  • Program (clinical or educational) evaluation
  • Workshops or experiential or theory-based/generating

RESEARCH AND PROGRAM EVALUATION ABSTRACT

Accepted research abstracts and program evaluation abstracts will be published in an abstract supplement by Addiction Science and Clinical Practice. Authors are encouraged to submit original work but are also welcome to submit abstracts that have been presented at other conferences. Authors cannot submit abstracts of a work already published as a full type article in a peer-reviewed journal. Abstracts previously published elsewhere will not be published in the abstract supplement.

Research and program evaluation abstracts must be structured with the following headings:

  • Background
  • Material and methods
  • Results
  • Conclusions

Research and program evaluation abstracts can be part of a symposium. Each abstract (whether or not part of a symposium proposal) must be submitted individually. Research and program evaluation abstracts will be considered for oral or poster presentation (you may choose to have your submission considered for oral, poster, or either). Due to limited time in the conference program, submitting an abstract for consideration for oral presentation only may decrease the likelihood of acceptance.

Two individual research or program abstracts will be chosen for presentation in a Best Abstract Plenary session (one best abstract, one semi-finalist). Abstracts submitted as part of symposium are not eligible since by definition they will be presented as part of a symposium.

Note: It is generally not acceptable to state that results are pending without at least providing some preliminary findings. In unusual cases the review committee may accept abstracts of studies that will have very important results that will only be available at the time of the meeting but not at abstract submission time. In such cases, the author should make a very convincing case that major late-breaking results are imminent and will be available and presented.

Presentation of accepted abstracts:

Oral presentations will be strictly limited to 10 minutes in length followed by an additional 5 minutes for questions.

Poster presentations: An author must be present to display and discuss the poster. Posters will be evaluated for awards during the poster session.

WORKSHOPS OR EXPERIMENTAL OR THEORY-BASED/GENERATING ABSTRACTS

Workshop and experiential or theory-based/generating abstracts are meant to provide an opportunity for participants to share learning in a less formal and less structured way. This format may be most appropriate for those wanting to share developing thinking on clinical or training experiences, exploration of theory relevant to SBI, qualitative insights gained from implementation, delving into mechanisms of change, and methodological challenges and solutions These abstracts will include an aim, the question(s) to be addressed, a summary of the anticipated presentation, and conclusions. They will not be eligible for the best abstract selection.

Workshops should be interactive and encourage active attendee participation. Proposals should describe the learning objectives for the workshop and the anticipated content and learning methods.

The key consideration for workshop selection (aside from relevance to alcohol or drugs brief interventions) is that the topic or approach proposed is best suited for small group interactive learning. In addition, workshops may be appropriate for brief presentation and discussion of preliminary findings from clinical, educational and research programs that are better discussed in this format than in abstract format. Workshops will be 90 minutes in duration.

Examples of workshops include (Sessions for learning brief intervention skills, Discussing implementation of brief interventions, Discussions of research methodology issues, Demonstration of educational material, and Demonstration of Information Technology tools utilized for conducting brief interventions.)

SYMPOSIA

A symposium is a 90-minute session. It is based on a coordinated submission of abstracts that are related. A symposium presentation includes:

  • An introduction,
  • 4 oral presentations based on submitted abstracts,
  • A discussion
  • Each component is 10 minutes total and 5 minutes for questions.

The introduction and discussion may be done by one or two people, who may or may not be presenters of abstracts submitted, one of whom will likely be the chairperson of the symposium. A chairperson may only lead one symposium proposal.

The symposium chairperson submits a symposium proposal that includes:

  • The title of the symposium,
  • List of the lead authors and titles of the abstracts included in the symposium proposal,
  • The names of the people providing the introduction and leading the discussion,
  • Summary of the goals for the symposium (300 word limit-see submission form).

Note: EACH ABSTRACT MUST BE SUBMITTED INDIVIDUALLY (in addition to and separate from the symposium proposal), INDICATING THE WISH TO BE PART OF A SYMPOSIUM AND PROVIDING THE SYMPOSIUM TITLE AND CHAIRPERSON’S NAME.

FUNDING DECLARATIONS AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

For all types of abstracts full information on all relevant funding sources must be provided and a statement on possible conflicts of interest must be included. Where no such conflicts exist, author should state this.

TRIAL REGISTRATION & CONSENT TO PUBLISH

Trial registration:

Abstracts related to randomized controlled clinical trials should include the trial registry along with the unique identifying number.

Consent to publish:

If the abstract contains details relating to individual participants, written informed consent for the publication of these details must be obtained from the participants.

Corresponding author/chairperson
(in bold, sentence case with no full stop at the end and no underlining)
List of the lead authors and titles of the abstracts included in the symposium

Please indicate first name, middle initials if required, and surname of lead authors followed by the title of their abstract.

This should include the names of the people providing the introduction and leading the discussion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Conflict of interest – Guidance for authors

The corresponding author should use this form to declare all funding sources and competing interests for the presentation being submitted. ALL authors are requested to disclose to the corresponding author any actual or potential conflict of interest including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations since beginning the work submitted, or in the three years prior to that, which could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work. Authors should use the following questions to declare funding sources and to decide whether they have any competing interests:

1. Funding sources

1.1. Funding sources for this work
List all funding sources for the work. If the present work was supported directly or indirectly by the alcohol industry, or by third-party organizations funded by the alcohol industry, please give both the name of the organization (e.g., the International Center for Alcohol Policies) and describe its connection with the industry if that connection would not be apparent to the conference participants. If none declare “None”; if yes, please describe organization and type of financial award. Please see list of organizations for examples.
2. Competing interests: Financial support of other work & employment

2.1 Have you in the three years prior to the beginning of the work accepted financial awards from an organization that represents an interest which may in any way be affected financially from the kinds of research described in your original study? Please declare any direct or indirect connections with the alcohol industry, or by third-party organizations funded by the alcohol industry, regardless of whether the funds are connected with the present work, Awards that should be declared include: reimbursement for attending a symposium; a fee for speaking; a fee for organizing education; funds for research (other than those declared above); travel funds to attend a meeting; or fees for consulting. If none declare “None”; if yes, please describe organization and type of financial award.
2.2. Have you in the three years prior to the beginning of the work been employed by an organization that may in any way be affected financially from the kinds of research described in your study or the topic of your review, editorial, or letter? Do you hold any stocks or shares in an organization that may in any way be affected financially from the kinds of research described in your study or the topic of your presentation? Have you been paid to serve as an expert witness on the subject of your presentation? Do you have any other competing financial interests? If none declare “None”; if yes, please describe organization and type of employment, stocks, or paid activity.
3. Competing interests: Non-financial

3.1. Do you have any significant or obvious non-financial competing interests (real or apparent) that should be known about in order to judge the objectivity of a particular article or other work? If none declare “None”; if yes, please describe.