This presentation will cover the unique leaning that occurred through several cycles of the review process. It will describe the challenges of designing submission instructions, determining relevant review criteria and developing submission review time frames in the context of differing interests, backgrounds, and expertise. The presentation will also examine the inherent difficulties in providing adequate directions to authors on adapting presentations for an international audience with variable leaning needs.

As an outgrowth of feedback from previous cruises, the review committee added focused discussion sessions in 2003 and a poster session in 2005. Keeping the review process timely, considering international holidays, communicating across time zone differences, was an ongoing challenge with meeting registration deadlines.

Replicating a conventional abstract review process: blinded submissions were assigned to committee members for peer review on predetermined criteria. The original set of seven criteria, were reduced to four deemed the most pertinent to a US-Russian audience: clarity of presentation, quality, interest, and applicability. Criteria were rated on a 0-5 scale, and scores reviewed at a full committee review process. Letters of acceptance to the authors incorporated suggestions for strengthening the presentation and providing greater relevancy for the Russian participants. Generally this related to creating context and broadening implications, while planning for the presentation going through a translator to the audience.

The abstract review committee benefited from ongoing participation of its members over several cruises. Melding a traditional peer review process with the conference goals of “finding opportunities for teaching and learning” led to an enriched process for all.