NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process

1. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Abstract Submission Process • August • FC Chair confirms committee roster for upcoming year (13 members, plus Research Committee (RC) Chair & Convention Planning Committee (CPC) Representative). Potential new members are discussed at January meeting & FC Chair contacts them as needed. • FC Chair works with NATA Foundation staff to review & update the call for abstracts for website • September • Call for abstracts is posted on website by early September • FC Chair confirms all incoming committee members • October • Online abstract submission opens October 1 - November 1 • FC Chair & NATA Foundation staff schedule January meeting • November • November 1, 11:59 pm abstract submission closes Abstract Review Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

2. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Abstract Review Process • November • NATA Foundation staff begin work to blind abstracts, assign codes, & group by topical categories • FC Chair creates review teams • Review Teams • 4 teams of 3 people each, Each team reviews ~125 abstracts • FC Chair, RC Chair, & CPC Representative form a 5th review team that is the “second review” team for all abstracts being rejected. This team will also review some case studies, and mechanically review the student exchange abstracts. • Abstracts are categorized into topical themes & grouped together. Reviewers are assigned as closely as possible to their area of expertise. • Case studies are spread out among the 5 groups Abstract Review Process continues Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

3. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process • December • NATA Foundation staff completes coding & creates topical categories, and sends FC Chair a spreadsheet containing the number of abstracts submitted per category • FC Chair assigns abstracts to review groups & sends NATA Foundation staff the “Reviewer Assignments Taxonomy Table” • NATA Foundation staff creates review website & uploads the assigned abstracts to each reviewer. Reviewers only see blinded abstracts. The review website is made accessible to reviewers by December 10th. A “Dropbox” folder containing all blinded abstracts is also shared with reviewers. • Abstract Review Process Abstract Review Process Abstract Review Process continues Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

4. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process • December • Abstract Review Process • Each abstract submitted in Peer-review track undergoes both a mechanical & scientific merit review by at least 3 committee members • All presentations must be of original work (not previously presented or published). If a manuscript is under review at submission, and then subsequently accepted prior to meeting, the author should notify FC Chair and the abstract will be removed from program. • Previous presentation at athletic training organizations’ state & district meetings and the NATA Athletic Training Educators’ Conference is acceptable • Specific review criteria are used for original research & case study abstracts. (Details of the review process are in Appendix A) • Reviews are completed by January 10th Abstract Review Process Abstract Review Process continues Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

5. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Abstract Review Process • January - Face-to-face committee meeting (continued) • FC Chair reviews basic process of abstract review process with FC Committee • Group reviews common criteria for rejection & reasons for mechanical rejection • Review Teams • FC Committee divides into review teams & makes a decision about each abstract in their group • A=Accept • R=Reject • RM=Reject-mechanical • Once a decision is made, abstract is marked with A, R, or RM and given to Second Review team. Decision is recorded into master spreadsheet. • Comments & reasons for rejection are recorded into spreadsheet given to FC Chair • The “Second Review” team is given all R and RM abstracts & comments. Similar to editor of a journal, this team makes final decision for rejection. This team also verifies that any NATA Foundation funded abstract has been accepted, or what minor corrections are needed for acceptance. Abstract Review Process continues

6. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process • January - Face-to-face committee meeting (continued) • Identify Student Award Finalist • From each review group the abstracts with the 3 highest scores from each submission category (undergraduate, masters, or doctoral) are forwarded on to the Awards Chair • Undergraduate-posters • Master’s poster & oral session(s) • Doctoral poster & oral session(s) • Research Committee Awards Chair +1 FC Member select the finalists for the Undergraduate, Master’s poster, Master’s oral, Doctoral poster, and Doctoral oral sessions based on 3 highest scores for each category • Award finalist may also present during regular programming • Judges solicited from FC members initially & then to past judges or new names following meeting Abstract Review Process Abstract Review Process continues Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

7. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Abstract Review Process • January - Face-to-face committee meeting (continued) • Create Program Schedule • Creates topical cluster of accepted abstracts • Undergraduate students who submitted in professional track can present in any format • CPC representative should have the number of oral & thematic poster sessions available • Oral sessions can have 4-6 abstracts • Thematic poster sessions can have ~ 10 abstracts • Spitfire poster sessions can have ~ 10 abstracts • General poster session, all posters displayed all week. Presentation times are divided alphabetically • Final step is to UNBLIND abstracts to make sure that authors are available at times given, with consideration to other scheduled presentations or moderating Abstract Review Process continues Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

8. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process • January - Face-to-face committee meeting (continued) • Moderators • Generate at least 2 potential moderators for each session • Confirm moderator availability with other session schedule (CPC Rep) • Schedule oral & thematic poster sessions into rooms (CPC Rep) Abstract Review Process Post Abstract Review Meeting Process Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

9. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process • February • Rejection letters are sent by NATA Foundation staff by February 15th • A general acceptance letter is sent by NATA Foundation staff by March 1. This will not yet contain specific presentation dates & times, but will indicate whether the abstract will be presented in oral or poster format • A final letter containing presentation date & time will be sent by April 1 • Moderators confirmed & formally contacted by NATA Foundation staff by May 1 • Final information for the program is due to NATA Meetings office by May 15 Post Abstract Review Meeting Process Thanks for your interest in the NATA Foundation Free Communications Program! Go to http://natafoundation.org/request-funding/ Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

10. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Appendix A: Abstract Review Process Review Guidelines • Each abstract will be reviewed by at least 3 committee members • All presentations must be of original work (not previously presented or published). • Previous presentation at athletic training organizations’ state and district meetings and the NATA Athletic Training Educators’ Conference is acceptable • Mechanical review: word count, sub-headings, formatting, • Word count: original = 450, case report = 600 • Funding information is not counted in the word count, and should be placed immediately following the word count. • Check structure formatting and subheadings (missing headers, or incorrect formatting of headers can be copyedited) • If rejecting for mechanical reasons, state this in the comments section • Review for scientific merit for Original Research Abstracts • Each category is scored on a 0-5 point Likert scale in each of the following areas: • Completeness of requested information in each structured heading. • Overall clarity of writing • Originality of research and or contribution to the literature or knowledgebase • Methods and results address the primary objective • Consistency between data and conclusions • Adequacy of sample size to support conclusions • Reviewers provide written comments to justify the rejection of the abstract, and provide constructive feedback if the author requests it. Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

11. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Appendix A: Abstract Review Process Common Reasons Leading to Rejection of Original Research Abstracts General • Information requested within structured heading is not provided • Research not original • Mechanical (copy editing, formatted incorrectly, heading missing, etc.) Context • Not stating rationale or clinical relevance for the study Objective • Unclear purpose, specific aim(s) or objective(s) • Methods used does not address specific aim or objectives Design • Not provided or incorrect Setting • Context/setting not stated (e.g. was conducted in a controlled laboratory setting) Patients or Other Participants • Inadequate or poor description of demographic data describing the subjects (e.g., number, mean age, mean height, standard deviations, etc. not included) • Exclusion of critical definitions of groups (e.g., training vs. non), conditions (e.g., fatigue, DOMS) or variables (e.g., TTS, EMG onset, etc.) Interventions • Lack of operational definitions of primary independent variables sufficient for the reader to determine if they are categorical or continuous Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

12. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Appendix A: Abstract Review Process Common Reasons Leading to Rejection of Original Research Abstracts Interventions • Survey development process and available psychometric data not included (i.e. is the survey used valid and reliable) • No description of statistical tests employed Main Outcome Measures • No specific identification or adequate description of the dependent variable(s) measured: (e.g., binary such as injured or not injured, or continuous like EMG, kinematics, etc.) Results • No presentation of means or measures of dispersion (variance, standard deviation, confidence intervals, etc.) • No confidence intervals provided with epidemiological measures such as rates and risks • Presentation of the result of the statistical analysis (P, F, t or r values) without presenting means and measures of dispersion • Statistical results reported incorrectly. (statistical results should be presented in a manner consistent with the AMA manual of style 9th Edition) • Results are not consistent with the listed independent and dependent variables Conclusions • Conclusions not consistent with results reported • Conclusions are grossly over generalized Word Count • Abstract exceeds allowable word count Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

13. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Appendix A: Abstract Review Process Review of scientific merit for case reports: • Completeness of requested information in each structured heading. • Overall clarity of writing • Originality of clinical case report • Case managed within the standard of care Common Reasons Leading to Rejection of Case Report Research Abstracts • Information requested within structured heading is not provided • Poor overall clarity of writing • Case report not unique • Case report mismanaged within accepted standard of care • Incomplete conclusion to the case report, a final outcome is not provided • Role of AT not clearly identified in the case report • Differential diagnosis is incomplete or incorrect format • No final diagnosis is provided in the case • No indication patient gave consent to report this case • Injury progression is chronologically confusing • Appropriate medical terminology, including diagnoses and anatomical terminology not used • Case does not focus on the relevance to athletic training clinical practice Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education

14. NATA Foundation Free Communications Program Process Appendix A: Abstract Review Process NATA Foundation Funded research • All abstracts are reviewed in the same manner as other abstracts, however the primary investigators are contractually obligated to present the results of the specific aims of the funded study. If there are editorial corrections needed, they are sent to the authors who have 1 week to correct and return it. Student Exchange • To align with the Free Communication Committee’s mission and the NATA Foundation’s strategic priorities, the Free Communications Committee has voted to eliminate the Student Exchange Program. Students can still present their research during the NATA convention through the Free Communications Program by submitting their abstract through the peer-review track. Every abstract submitted to the Free Communications Program is reviewed by the committee, allowing the committee to better advance its mission to the “discovery, dissemination and application of scientific knowledge in athletic training domains through written and oral forum.” Students are encouraged to submit through the peer-review track of the Free Communications Program. Supporting and Advancing the Athletic Training Profession through Research and Education