Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Acknowledgment of the Scientific Contributors The Scientific Program Committee of the 16th Inter- some works have subsequently been withdrawn by the national Congress of Cytology wishes to thank all authors. Seven abstracts were rejected by the reviewers. contributors to the conference and acknowledge the Assessment of workshop submissions was particu- high standard of the work presented in this publica- larly difficult, with 37 applications made for 12 work- tion. In addition, the committee wishes to thank all shops. The workshop submissions were similarly invited lecturers and contributors to the various Satel- graded and then ranked. In addition, reviewers were lite Symposia. We offer our congratulations to those asked to state whether the workshop covered a novel receiving awards from the International Academy of topic or offered a novel approach to a well-known Cytology. topic. Some excellent workshops were not accepted The Committee wishes to inform readers that all because they had been offered at several other confer- abstracts were submitted to peer review by members ences over a period of several years. The organizers of the Canadian Society of Cytology. Using a standard regret the necessary limitations of space, time and protocol, each abstract was graded by 2 independent number of microscopes available for workshops. reviewers with special expertise in the particular area The Scientific Program Committee wishes to thank addressed by the abstract. The clinical or scientific im- the Editors of Acta Cytologica for their assistance and portance of the work was scored 0 through 5 [0, Re- for making possible the publication of this conference ject; 1, Poor; 2, Fair; 3, Good; 4, Very Good; 5, Ex- supplement. We thank the following reviewers for cellent]. In addition, reviewers were asked to indicate their expert contribution to this publication: Drs. whether an abstract provided significant new informa- Manon Auger, Diponkar Banerjee, Terry Colgan, tion or would be likely to stimulate discussion or fur- Maire Duggan, Dan Fontaine, Malcolm Hayes, Linda ther research. In cases in which a marked discrepancy Kapusta, Moosa Khalil, Karim Khetani, Bryan between the 2 reviewers was noted, a third reviewer Knight, Jasenka Matisic, Calum MaCauley, Meg provided an independent additional opinion. McLachlin, Tom Thompson, Dirk van NieKirk, The abstracts were ranked in order of excellence, Ranjit Waghray and Michele Weir. Editorial assis- and selections for oral presentations were made from tance was provided by Michelle Mori of Venue West cases receiving a score of 3.5 or more out of 5. Most Conference Services. abstracts accepted for oral platform presentations scored 4 or 5. Initially, 72 oral platform presentations Bryan Knight, M.B., Ch.B., Ph.D., F.I.A.C. and 187 poster presentations were accepted, although Abstract Editor ACTA CYTOLOGICA Volume 51 Number 2 (Supplement) March–April 2007 2A
Acta Cytologica – Karger
Published: Jan 1, 2011
You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.