Authors » Selection Criteria
Some papers are better suited for poster presentation, others for oral presentation. Authors may indicate a preference for poster presentation on the abstract submission form and on front page of the abstract; otherwise, all abstracts will be considered for both oral and poster sessions, unless the submitting author specifically requests a poster presentation.
The Technical Program Committees will select abstracts according to how well they address the following questions:
- What are the significant new accomplishments? State unambiguously whether devices have been fabricated, experimental results obtained, and provide details.
- What is new in relation to previous work? Provide references to relevant literature (including publications by the author's group).
- What is the goal or motivation of the work?
- What is the impact or significance of the results to the sensor/actuator/microanalysis field?
For 2023, submission of papers that have not been placed in the public domain by the author more than 1 year (1 October 2022) before the submission date, with proper reference, will be reviewed and acceptance considered by the technical program committees. Publication of a paper or significant portion of the work elsewhere more than one year (12 months) before the submission date or without proper reference will yield withdrawal from presentation at the Conference by the Conference Chairs.
Reasons Abstracts are not accepted:
- Was not submitted to the MicroTAS 2023 Conference Website by deadline to send to the reviewers
- Exceeded word limit of 500 or didn't have reference number on abstract
- Prior Publication - If the subject matter in the abstract appears in print or on the Internet on or before 1 October 2022, it will be rejected.
- Didn't show application was working
- Didn't document data, details or measurement or had some relevant info missing
- Data too generic or not enough device or process characterization
- Results incomplete and inconclusive and/or no verification
- Unclear concept of device, or what is "new" from your previous work or others
- Poor images and unclear pictures or no picture of device
- Abstract acting as a commercial instead of displaying research
- Insufficient technical impact
- Wrong meeting for this topic - better suited for a different meeting
- Didn't reference previous known work or publications