Invitation
The international scientific committee for the 15th World Conference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion 2024 (Safety 2024) is delighted to invite all potential presenters, including but not limited to researchers, practitioners, NGOs, and policymakers to submit abstracts for consideration for presentation at the conference in India, New Delhi in September 2024. We look forward to receiving submissions which illustrate the five conference themes:
- 1. Improving coordination and collaboration.
- 2. Strengthening capacity for injury research and practice.
- 3. Integrating the field with global health agendas such as sustainability and equity.
- 4. Empowered communities.
- 5. Promoting evidence informed policymaking.
While we welcome submissions from ALL researchers and practitioners working in relevant fields, we particularly encourage submissions from early career researchers, those from low- and middle-income countries, Indigenous or Tribal peoples and perspectives from victims and survivors of injury. The conference will provide a dynamic platform for delegates from around the world to come together and exchange knowledge, experiences, and innovative ideas in the field of injury prevention and safety promotion.
Abstract Submission Focus Areas under the 2nd Call
Under the 2nd call, we are seeking abstracts that are impactful, innovative, context-relevant and feasible and are from the under-represented areas from the 1st round. Kindly submit your abstracts on the below focus areas only -
Abstracts that align with the conference theme: “Building a safer future for all: equitable and sustainable strategies for injury and violence and prevention” will be particularly sought after.
Abstract Submission Streams
The conference encourages the submission of abstracts in four different streams depending on the type of submission. These are: Research, Policy, Programme, and Practice. A brief explanation of each stream is provided in the submission guidelines. By choosing a stream for your abstract submission, you may help ensure it reaches the most appropriate audience at the World Safety 2024 Injury Conference.
The following submission guidelines have been prepared to assist authors. We recommend that you use the suggested section headings to help present the information, however you may modify the section headings to more closely fit your work if necessary.
Abstract Submission Guidelines
Abstracts for both oral and poster presentations will be considered. All abstracts must be submitted online through our conference website using the submission template provided. Please review the abstract guidelines carefully before preparing your abstract. Only abstracts that comply with all the following guidelines will be considered for presentation. Abstracts submitted after the closing date will not be included in the review process.
- Abstracts must be written in English.
- The abstract should be a concise summary of your project, including the appropriate subheadings for the submission category.
- The maximum word count for the abstract is 350 words.
- Abstracts should be submitted in plain text format, without tables, graphs, or images.
- Please indicate your preferred presentation format: oral or poster.
- Authors may submit multiple abstracts, but each abstract must be submitted individually.
- Ensure that all author names, affiliations, and contact information are provided accurately.
- Abstracts must be original work that has not been previously published or presented at another conference.
- Please ensure permission is granted by all authors to publish the abstract if selected for presentation.
- All abstracts should identify a lead presenter for inclusion in the programme.
- The scientific committee will review all submitted abstracts and make the final selection for presentation.
We encourage the use of the following section headings for abstract submissions:
Stream 1: Research
This stream is for original scientific research conducted in the field of injury safety and prevention.
Submissions should present new empirical findings or theoretical contributions. This category is appropriate for scientists, researchers, or academics.
- - Title: Choose a concise and informative title that accurately describes your study.
- - Authors: Include the full names of all authors, their affiliations and email addresses. Specify which of the authors is the presenting author.
- - Background: Explain the context of the study, the specific issue addressed, and its significance.
- - Objective: Clearly articulate the specific purpose or research question addressed by your study.
- - Methods: Detail the research methodology used including data collection, instruments, and analysis techniques.
- - Results: Share your research findings, including statistical analyses and their implications.
- - Conclusions: Summarise your key findings and their implications, addressing the study's contribution to the field of injury safety and prevention.
Stream 2: Policy
This stream is appropriate for submissions that analyse existing or proposed policies in injury prevention and safety. The abstracts should be based on rigorous analytical methodologies.
- - Title: Provide a succinct, descriptive title that clearly indicates the policy issue being addressed.
- - Authors: List all authors, their affiliations, and contact information.
- - Background: Describe the policy issue under investigation, its relevance and the context in which it arises.
- - Objective: Define the specific aim of your policy analysis.
- - Policy Analysis: Describe the approach or framework you have used for your policy analysis and the rationale behind it.
- - Policy Implications: Discuss the implications of your analysis for policy making, including potential impacts and benefits.
- - Conclusions: Summarise your main findings, policy recommendations, and the potential impact on injury safety and prevention.
Stream 3: Programme or Practice
This stream is for submissions that describe, evaluate, or compare safety and injury prevention programmes or projects. We encourage pluralistic methods, a research programme and presenters from multi-disciplinary teams or sectors for submissions under this stream. The focus can be on programme design, implementation, or outcomes and may include pilot studies, community initiatives, or interventions.
*This stream will allow for a longer presentation time of up-to 25 mins, with multiple presenters.
- - Title: use a descriptive, concise title that clearly indicates the nature and scope of the programme.
- - Authors: Include all contributors, their affiliations, and contact details.
- - Background: Explain the issues that the programme addresses, its context, and its significance.
- - Objective: Clearly state the purpose or goal of the programme.
- - Programme Description: Detail the programme design, implementation, and the strategies used.
- - Outcomes and Learnings: Share the results of the programme, its impact, and lessons learned.
- - Implications: Discuss the potential for this programme's approach to be applied or adapted elsewhere.
- - Conclusions: Summarise the main findings or outcomes, lessons learned or the project's implications for the field of injury safety and prevention.
Abstract Evaluation Process:
Chairs will allocate abstracts submitted to at least 2 reviewers and abstracts will be peer reviewed by these reviewers based on the assessment criteria. Keywords will help in selection of relevant reviewers. In addition, the scientific committee may invite an early career researcher (defined as PhD or higher) to be part of the reviewing team to develop their capacity in peer reviewing. If you are an early career researcher and would like to take part in this, please tick the relevant box when you submit your abstract.
Assessment criteria:
- 1. Thematic Relevance: Is it relevant to the conference remit or theme?
- 2. Presentation: Does the abstract follow the agreed guidelines for each type of abstract
- 3. Quality of Content: Is the abstract well written and understandable for people not familiar with the field?
- 4. Significance: Is the paper relevant for its context?
- 5. Originality: Does the paper bring new perspectives, approaches, or evidence on a particular subject?
- 6. Is the study novel, and interesting, would it contribute to a great event?
- 7. In addition, the committee may assess issues of sustainability and equity in abstract submissions where appropriate.
Please note that the maximum abstract submission limit is two(2).
Please Click here to submit your abstracts
Important Dates:
- - Abstract Submission Opens: 10th September 2023
- - Abstract Submission Deadline: 10th January 2024
- - Notification of Acceptance: 10th February 2024
- - Early Bird Registration Opens: 10th February 2024
- - 2nd Call for Abstracts Submission Opens: 15th March 2024
- - 2nd Call for Abstracts Submission Deadline: 30th April 2024
- - Early Bird Registration Deadline: 15th May 2024
Join us in shaping the future of injury prevention and safety promotion. Submit your abstract today and contribute to the global effort of creating safer communities for everyone.
For any assistance regarding the online submission of abstracts, please contact at abstractssafety2024@ia-meetings.com
For further information and updates, please visit our conference website https://www.worldsafety2024.com or contact our scientific committee at scientific@worldsafety2024.com or safety2024@georgeinstitute.org.
We look forward to your participation and welcoming you to the 15th World Conference on Injury Prevention and Safety Promotion!
Sincerely,
International Scientific Committee
Abstract Assessment Process
Abstracts will be allocated to appropriate reviewers based on the focus area, thematic area and keywords provided by the authors.
At least two reviewers will consider abstracts. An additional early career researcher reviewer may also consider abstracts.
Reviewers will assess abstracts based on the general marking scheme. Each criterion will be scored from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest) and an overall general score will be calculated across all criteria. The final score will be the mean score across all reviewers.
Abstract submitted must have a clearly described design & context, presentation/process, analysis and outcomes.
Criteria 1 – Design and context
The following questions should be answered:
- Is the research design, approach or purpose clear?
- Does the introduction and background clearly describe what is to be presented?
- Does the abstract follow the agreed guidelines for each type of abstract?
| Score | 25% | Category | Criteria |
| 5 | 25 | Excellent | Subject exceptionally thorough/accurately conveyed in project/program description. |
| 4 | 20 | Good | Is technically sound and aims and objectives are achievable. Subject is well presented and project/program description clear. |
| 3 | 15 | Acceptable | Only minor flaws in method/data or in the way program/project has been described |
| 2 | 10 | Poor | For research, methodology is unclear, data may have major errors (but unclear), questionable assumptions. Projects/programs, not well described, unclear as to aims or objectives. |
| 1 | 5 | Unacceptable | Submission has serious errors in approach that invalidate the results, or clearly erroneous data or information. |
Criteria 2 – Process and Findings
- Are the process and findings clearly presented?
- Is there evidence of technical merit, readability, and methodological rigour.
- Is the information presented evidence informed, relevant and contemporary?
- Are there any flaws in underlying assumptions that are stated in the abstract?
| Score | 25% | Category | Criteria |
| 5 | 25 | Excellent | A highly relevant and appropriate body of work that is clearly presented and technically robust. |
| 4 | 20 | Good | A relevant and appropriate body of work that is accurate and contemporary |
| 3 | 15 | Acceptable | Information presented has some flaws in the underlying assumptions presented |
| 2 | 10 | Poor | Content is inaccurate and there are flaws in underlying assumptions |
| 1 | 5 | Unacceptable | Content has serious flaws and incorrect information is presented and abstract is not of an acceptable standard for conference presentation |
Criteria 3 – Analysis and Outcomes
- Does the analysis relate to the findings and/or outcomes/discussion?
- Are the methodology or processes followed rigorous and appropriate for the problem being investigated or program implemented. Is the methodology well described?
- Originality: Does the paper bring new perspectives, approaches, or evidence on a particular subject?
- Does it showcase best or innovative practice?
| Score | 25% | Category | Criteria |
| 5 | 25 | Excellent | Highly important, novel and original project/program/research with appropriate deductions from the findings/ discussion/outcomes. |
| 4 | 20 | Good | A relevant and appropriate abstract/body of research, presentable at the conference with relevant discussions/insights and outcomes. |
| 3 | 15 | Acceptable | Information presented is somewhat relevant to the conference for presentation, relatively new |
| 2 | 10 | Poor | Deductions from the findings and/or outcomes not clearly presented, no new information is presented |
| 1 | 5 | Unacceptable | Abstract is not relevant to the conference and the program/project or research not acceptable for presentation or discussion. Repeats well established and previously known information. |
Criteria 4 – Conference Relevance
- Is the abstract relevant to the conference remit or theme?
- Is the presentation likely to grab the attention of the attendees? (Would it contribute to a great event?)
- Does the abstract content demonstrate interest to a broad audience?
- Does the abstract demonstrate commitment to equity and inclusion of marginalised, indigenous, or groups facing inequity in its authorship, methodology and subject matter?
- Does this abstract submission measure global/regional/national health disparities among populations/groups experiencing social, economic, geographic, and/or environmental disadvantages?
- Does your submission propose, implement, or evaluate an action to move towards eliminating health inequities?
- Does this abstract advance sustainability and related issues in its methodology, outcomes, or results?
| Score | 25% | Category | Criteria |
| 5 | 25 | Excellent | The submission presents material that would be highly welcomed by the conference participants |
| 4 | 20 | Good | The submission is relevant to this conference |
| 3 | 15 | Acceptable | The submission has borderline relevance to this conference |
| 2 | 10 | Poor | The submission is of low relevance to this conference |
| 1 | 5 | Unacceptable | Does not belong at this conference |