Each submitted abstract will be reviewed and scored by two to three independent reviewers who have expertise in the specific subject area. The abstract review process will be conducted in the blind. All authors’ names will be removed from the abstract before the reviewer gains access to the abstract.After adjusting for differences in scoring among individual reviewers, abstracts will be ranked on the basis of their overall score, and available slots for spoken and poster presentations will be allocated according to merit using all submissions combined, taking into account presentation preferences.

Reviewers apply the following four criteria to judge abstract submissions

• Originality
  Abstracts containing significant new findings or presenting new approaches will be given higher scores than those that describe updates, modifications to older findings, or routine applications of well established research methods
• Quality
  Abstracts should demonstrate that robust research methods were used, including a scientifically robust study design. The research should lead to a clear answer to the main research question(s). The methods and results should be described in sufficient detail and the conclusions should be supported by the data.
• Importance
  This criterion addresses the importance of the research in terms of advancing the science, conservation or management of marine mammals.
• Presentation
  Abstracts that are clearly written and concise will receive higher scores. This criterion addresses how well the specific research question(s) and objectives, methods used, primary results, etc are explained, rather than the quality of the study itself. A brief, clearly written abstract follows a logical order (e.g. aims, methods, results, followed by a clear interpretation of the results and any conservation management implications).