Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Acknowledgment of the Scientific Contributors

Acknowledgment of the Scientific Contributors 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of the Scientific Contributors The Scientific Program Committee of the 16th Inter- some works have subsequently been withdrawn by the national Congress of Cytology wishes to thank all authors.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 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Acta Cytologica Karger

Acknowledgment of the Scientific Contributors

Acta Cytologica , Volume 51 (Suppl 1): 1 – Jan 1, 2011

Loading next page...
 
/lp/karger/acknowledgment-of-the-scientific-contributors-H2DnUgvZX9

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Karger
Copyright
© 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel
ISSN
0001-5547
eISSN
1938-2650
DOI
10.1159/000325739
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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

Journal

Acta CytologicaKarger

Published: Jan 1, 2011

There are no references for this article.