Author Instructions

Double-Blind Review Philosophy

MSB 2025 will continue to follow Society for Microscale Separations and Bionalysis’ philosophy for selecting abstracts focused on the presentation of new, current, controversial and/or unpublished work and foster active discussions during the oral and poster sessions. A key in meeting these goals is the double-blind abstract selection process. The double-blind process removes any potential bias in the selection, ensuring that the works being presented at the symposium are selected on the basis of their quality regardless of the stature or the author(s).

To ensure that the double-blind review process is effective we kindly request that all presenters follow the instructions below. The grading rubric which will be used for the scoring of abstracts by the selection committee can also be found below. Please ensure that you are selecting the most relevant topic area(s) for your submissions to ensure that your abstract is being judged by the appropriate experts and in the most appropriate context.

Abstract Requirements

Researchers with new results in areas relevant to the meeting are encouraged to submit an abstract online for oral or poster presentation consideration.
One abstract may be submitted per attendee as presenting author.
The presenting author must be registered as a delegate and pay the required fee by the registration deadline.
All presenters of an oral presentation who are graduate students or postdoctoral fellows at the end date of the meeting are eligible for Trainee Awards, depending on availability.
All abstracts must be written exclusively in English (including the title, abstract text, author names, and affiliations).
Please be aware of the posted submission deadlines (https://msb2025.asu.edu/registration) late submissions may not be given full consideration for inclusion in the symposium.
If you cannot submit the abstract prior to receiving company approval by the date abstracts are due (https://msb2025.asu.edu/registration), please submit a placeholder with the title, authors, and a brief description of the kind of material that you would like to present, and indicate when approval is expected. This material will be kept confidential. It is your responsibility to revise the abstract to the final version upon approval.
Authors will be notified promptly whether the submitted abstract has been accepted for oral or poster presentation, or was not selected for presentation.

Abstract Content Guidelines

Abstracts should be a maximum of 400 words and contain:

An introduction,
Experimental approach,
Results / discussion,
Conclusions,
References are optional, but should include DOI accession numbers, if available.

Please be aware that it is your responsibility to complete all data correctly and completely. Any errors in spelling, grammar or scientific content will be reproduced as typed by the author.

Do not include any information which could reveal your identity, or that of your co-authors, in the title or body of your abstract, including names, email addresses, or affiliations. All author names are stored separately from the title and body of the abstract to ensure a double-blinded review. If you include any identifying information, your submission will be automatically rejected.
In the body of the abstract, you should also eliminate all direct references to your own previous work. That is, avoid phrases such as "this contribution generalizes our results for XYZ". Finally, please do not disproportionately cite your own previous work. In other words, make your submission as anonymous as possible. We need your cooperation in our effort to maintain a fair, double-blind reviewing process - and to consider all submissions equally.
The total length of the abstract needs to be 400 words or less - the submission form will count words for you.
Introduction/Background/Aim of the Work: The background should be short, but describe what is already known about the subject, related to the paper in question as well as what is not known about the subject and hence what the study intends to examine. In most cases, the background can be framed in just 2 to 3 sentences, with each sentence describing a different aspect of the information. The purpose of the background is to provide the reviewer with a background to the study which will lead into a description of the methods employed in the investigation.
Instrumentation/Methods: This section should contain enough information to enable the reviewer to understand what was done, and how.
Results & Discussion: The results section is the most important part of the abstract and should be the longest, containing as much detail about the findings as the word count permits.
Conclusions: This section should contain the most important take-home message of the study, expressed in a few precisely worded sentences. Usually, the finding highlighted here relates to the primary outcome measure; however, other important or unexpected findings should also be mentioned. You may also consider expressing an opinion about the theoretical or practical implications of the findings, or the importance of these findings for the field. You may also want to comment on whether the work is unpublished or in press.
The review and scoring of the abstract will be based solely on the information provided in the abstract.

Peer Review

Submitted abstracts will be reviewed by the MSB 2025 Scientific Committee and Session Organizers in a double-blind manner. The reviewers will not have access to your name, institution, or position status. A review will be based solely on the information provided in the abstract.

Scoring Abstracts

Each submitted abstract will be reviewed scored by multiple judges based on the rubric below. The average scores will be used to rank abstracts for selection to their self-identified sessions. Higher scoring abstracts for the sessions will be given priority for selection.

Grading Rubric

The originality of the work (10 points) Scores:

0 No Originality
1 to 3 Many other well-designed studies published like this one
4 to 7 Few similar studies to this
8 to 10 Unique

Abstract quality/technical description (10 points) Scores:

0 to 3 Inadequate analysis; conclusions not supported by data
4 to 6 Deficient analysis; conclusions partially related to data
7 to 10 Appropriate analysis; conclusions supported by data

Significance (10 points) Scores:

0 to 3 Little if any significance; does not advance the field
4 to 6 Modest contribution to the field; advances the field modestly
7 to 10 Important contributions to the field

Fit to Session (10 points) Scores:

0 The work is not a fit for the session
1 to 3 Some fit is noted, but only in a minor role
4 to 7 The application is very loosely fitted to the session topic
8 to 10 Strong focus with a good fit to the session topic