Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GP-CAP
1
Watermeadow Medical, Witney, United Kingdom
2
Sideview, Princes Risborough, United Kingdom
3
Caudex, Oxford, United Kingdom
4
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Lexington, Massachusetts, USA
5
Darwin Grey Communications Ltd, Abingdon, United Kingdom
6
Cello Health MedErgy, Farnham, United Kingdom
7
Shire Pharmaceuticals, Basingstoke, United Kingdom
8
iMed Comms, Witney, United Kingdom
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Ethical Issues, Science and Medical Education
- Keywords
- best practice, conference abstracts, conference presentations, conference recommendations, conference guidelines, GPP for conferences
- Copyright
- © 2017 Foster et al.
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2017. Good Practice for Conference Abstracts and Presentations: GP-CAP. PeerJ Preprints 5:e3356v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3356v1
Abstract
This preprint document has been developed following discussions among the authors, all of whom work within the medical communications field. These discussions have indicated a clear need for guidance and consistency around conference abstracts and presentations, so we propose various recommendations and welcome input from any interested individuals. Any guidelines must be based on the principles of transparency, consistency and practicality, but we note that specific congress requirements should always be followed.
Author Comment
This is a preprint submission to PeerJ Preprints.