All session proposals submitted for the ̽»¨Â¥ Annual Meeting undergo a multi-step review process to ensure high-quality, relevant content. The Program Committee strives to select a balanced program representing the multi-faceted interests and needs of ̽»¨Â¥ membership.
Initial Review: Proposals are reviewed by members of ̽»¨Â¥’s Professional Activities Committees (PACs) and Program Committee.
Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers assess proposals based on clarity, originality, relevance to ̽»¨Â¥ audiences, alignment with the meeting’s themes, and the expertise of the presenter(s). Reviewers may request additional information from submitters regarding the session's content or intended delivery methods.
Scoring and Comments: Each proposal is scored and may receive feedback. Strong proposals often demonstrate actionable takeaways, audience engagement strategies, and broad institutional applicability.
Program Development: The Program Committee uses reviewer input to build a balanced and diverse agenda, ensuring coverage across key topic areas and member interests. Submitters of proposals with similar content may be asked to combine their sessions to offer a more comprehensive presentation.
Notification: Submitters are notified of acceptance, alternate, or not-accepted status. Presenters are asked to complete a "confirmation" form indicating their intent to accept or decline their invitation to present at the meeting.
This process is designed to maintain the high standard of educational content attendees expect from the ̽»¨Â¥ flagship event.