Abstracts and symposium selection criteria

We welcome a wide range of contributions including quantitative and qualitative research, case studies, policy analyses, descriptive studies, practice wisdom, evidence syntheses, and presentations grounded in lived experience or cultural knowledge – particularly strength-based approaches and generational knowledge from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.  

The overarching criterion is that the presentation demonstrates potential impact for Australian children and families. 

We are committed to ensuring diverse representation not only in the submissions we receive but also throughout the review process.

To achieve this, abstracts that address issues of significance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will be reviewed by individuals with cultural expertise and direct lived experience. This approach helps ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples’ knowledges and research methodologies are valued alongside western research methods.

Submissions will be assessed based on the below criteria.

Relevance to conference streams

To what extent is the abstract topical and related to one or more conference streams?

Originality

To what extent does the abstract offer new ideas, innovations or further our current understanding to shed new light on a topic? 

Analytical depth

To what extent does the abstract go beyond a description of a policy, program or service to provide data or evaluative insights that can be applied in other contexts or shed new light on a topic?

Evidence and rigour

To what extent is the work based on sound methodology, clear analysis, and transparent reporting of results? In addition to research evidence, this could include diverse perspectives such as lived experience, cultural knowledge, and practice-based insights.

Clarity and structure

To what extent is the abstract well-organised (e.g. background/purpose, aims, methods, results, and conclusions/implications) 
Is this language clear, concise, and free of jargon?

Practical value

To what extent does the abstract address relevant implications for policy and/or practice?