Select conference submissions for journal review with a clear triage record

1. Define what selection will actually mean

Write the proposed invitation before scoring submissions. It might invite the authors to prepare a full manuscript for ordinary editorial assessment. It should identify the journal, article type, relevant deadline and fee information that has actually been approved. Do not describe a place in a programme or an invitation to submit as an accepted journal article.

ICMJE assigns the journal editor responsibility for content decisions; a submission need not be sent for external review. Use that boundary to separate the conference panel’s recommendation from the journal’s decision.

Choose a responsible editor and make any relationship with the conference visible. Decide who handles a submission from the conference chair, a sponsor or the selecting editor. An independent route should be arranged before names are selected, rather than improvised after a conflict becomes inconvenient.

Reference: ICMJE: submission and peer-review responsibilities

2. Request the evidence behind the presentation

Begin with the version of the abstract or paper that was actually assessed at the conference. Record its title, authors, identifier, public location if any and presentation status. Request a short description of the underlying study and the material available for a full report. An attractive slide deck may omit the participant flow or analysis needed for assessment.

Ask authors which results are complete, which are preliminary and whether any related full report is published or under consideration. This is a factual request, not an accusation. Obtain permission for the relevant material to reach the journal through the agreed route; a conference submission form should not be assumed to authorise every later transfer.

On small screens, scroll the table horizontally, or focus it and use the arrow keys.

3. Compare three fictional candidates

Candidate A is a completed cross-sectional study of appointment barriers. Its abstract is public, its full methods and results exist, and the proposed journal includes this type of service research. It can be considered for an invitation subject to the journal’s checks. The record does not establish that its methods are sound; that requires examining the manuscript.

Candidate B won a presentation award but reports a trial protocol with no outcome data yet. If the journal accepts protocols, it may be assessed as a protocol under those requirements. If the proposed collection accepts completed research only, the award does not remove the mismatch. Asking the team to supply invented results would be an unacceptable way to fill that gap.

Candidate C has a full proceedings paper already published, while the proposed journal manuscript appears to repeat its main findings. The correct next action is to obtain both versions and an explanation of their relationship. Keep the candidate unresolved until the responsible editor applies the actual policy. These cases are invented and have no implied acceptance probabilities.

4. Check prior dissemination without blanket rules

BMJ’s author guidance asks for acknowledgement of conference presentation and citation of published abstracts. That example supports transparent reporting, not a promise that every conference extension qualifies at every journal.

Keep the actual prior item with the screening record. A short abstract, an accepted full proceedings paper and a journal article can carry different implications. Note any material that the team could not retrieve. Request the destination journal’s interpretation when the category is unclear, particularly for substantial proceedings publications or simultaneous journal consideration.

Do not set a universal percentage of new words or new data. A longer introduction can leave the scientific contribution unchanged. The editor needs to understand the research question, shared material and proposed contribution, as well as any permission issue that the authors must resolve.

Reference: BMJ Author Hub: formatting and prior conference presentation

5. Keep sponsors and special-issue promises outside the decision

For externally funded or guest-edited collections covered by its guidance, ICMJE preserves the journal editor’s control and authority to reject. The proposed conference arrangement should respect the journal’s actual adopted policy.

Describe operational duties separately: who requests files, who follows up missing information, who appoints reviewers and who communicates decisions. A society may fund administration without selecting favourable outcomes. Do not offer a sponsor a quota of accepted papers, a veto over critical findings or access to confidential reviews merely because it supported the meeting.

Reference: ICMJE: supplements, theme issues and special series

6. Send a bounded handoff and check what arrived

The handoff should contain the authors’ permitted files, the source abstract, related-report disclosures and the factual selection note. Label it as a recommendation for consideration. Confirm that the journal received the correct version; an email saying files were prepared does not show that they reached its submission system.

Tell the authors what remains: any missing information, ordinary editorial assessment and the absence of a publication guarantee. Record invitations issued, replies received and complete submissions as separate counts. Leave pending replies visible. This gives the society an honest account of follow-through without turning early interest into a claimed research output.

Questions for a practical final check

• The invitation describes consideration accurately.
• Scientific fit has a documented reason.
• Preliminary and completed work are distinguishable.
• Prior versions are supplied or marked unavailable.
• Conflicts have an independent handling route.
• The receiving journal confirms the actual handoff.