Classic form

Abstract submission form

A scientific committee reads three hundred abstracts in a fortnight, without author names, scoring each on the same four parts. This form makes that possible: four boxes with their own character limits, a co-author table that prints in order, and the declarations a committee has to take on trust. It is a classic form, because the four boxes have to be visible together for an author to balance them.

Create a form with OneCraft16 fields, 14 required

Welcome screen of the abstract submission form example — The welcome screen respondents see first. The image was generated for this example.

The form itself

A static copy of the finished form, exactly as it renders. Nothing here can be filled in or submitted, so read it as a reference and build your own from the button above.

Australasian Coastal Ecology Congress 2027

Hobart, 14 to 17 September. Abstracts close at 11.59pm AEST on 3 April and are reviewed without author names by two members of the scientific committee. Decisions go out on 22 May.

The abstract

Write the title in sentence case, with capitals only for names and acronyms. No commercial product names, no author names, no non standard abbreviations. Everything you submit is published exactly as written if it is accepted, because there is no proofreading step.

Abstract title *

Topic *

Preferred presentation format *

Preferred is the right word. The scientific committee decides the final format, and a strong abstract offered as a poster is often moved to an oral session rather than the other way round.

The abstract is written in four parts, with a character limit on each. Together they come to about 450 words, which is the same length every reviewer sees. Do not include references, acknowledgements or figures in these boxes.

Background, up to 700 characters *

Methods, up to 700 characters *

Results, up to 900 characters *

Conclusion, up to 450 characters *

Up to five keywords, separated by commas *

One or two figures, only if the abstract genuinely needs them

Click to upload

Max: 2MB

Images and PDF only, up to two files, 2 MB each, at least 800 pixels on the short side. A table must be supplied as an image, not as text.

Authors

Name the presenting author here, even if that is not you. Every message about this abstract goes to them and to nobody else, including the decision on 22 May, so an out of date address is how an accepted abstract quietly disappears.

Presenting author *

First

Last

Their email *

Their institution and department *

Co-authors, in the order they should be printed

#	Name	Institution	City and country
1
2
3
4
5

Conflicts of interest, for every author *

Declarations

Every one of these has to be true. They are the statements the scientific committee relies on because it cannot check them, and an abstract found in breach of any of them is withdrawn from the programme even after acceptance.

Declarations *

This work is original and has not been published or presented at another international meeting

It is not one part of a larger study split across several abstracts to increase our count

Every co-author, and the institution where the work was done, has agreed to this submission

No participant or landholder can be identified, and written consent was obtained where identification is possible

We hold the rights to any third party material included

Conflicts of interest are declared above for every author

The presenting author will register for the congress and present in person if this is accepted

Did you use an AI tool in preparing this abstract? *

Yes, for language editing only

Yes, in generating or analysing results, and it is described in the methods

Accepted abstracts are published in the book of abstracts exactly as submitted, under a Creative Commons attribution licence, and posters can be given a permanent digital object identifier if you want one. Acceptance does not waive the registration fee.

Every field, and what it collects

The complete field list, in the order respondents meet it.

Abstract titleShort textRequired
TopicDropdownRequired: Options: Reef and kelp ecology · Estuaries and catchments · Fisheries and aquaculture · Climate and heatwaves · Restoration and management · Monitoring methods and sensing · People, policy and coastal communities
Preferred presentation formatDropdownRequired: Options: Oral, 12 minutes plus 3 for questions · Rapid fire oral, 5 minutes · Poster with a 2 minute pitch · Poster only
Background, up to 700 charactersLong textRequired
Methods, up to 700 charactersLong textRequired
Results, up to 900 charactersLong textRequired
Conclusion, up to 450 charactersLong textRequired
Up to five keywords, separated by commasShort textRequired
One or two figures, only if the abstract genuinely needs themFile upload: Images and PDF only, up to two files, 2 MB each, at least 800 pixels on the short side. A table must be supplied as an image, not as text.
Presenting authorNameRequired
Their emailShort textRequired
Their institution and departmentShort textRequired
Co-authors, in the order they should be printedTable: Columns: Name · Institution · City and country
Conflicts of interest, for every authorLong textRequired
DeclarationsMultiple choiceRequired: Options: This work is original and has not been published or presented at another international meeting · It is not one part of a larger study split across several abstracts to increase our count · Every co-author, and the institution where the work was done, has agreed to this submission · No participant or landholder can be identified, and written consent was obtained where identification is possible · We hold the rights to any third party material included · Conflicts of interest are declared above for every author · The presenting author will register for the congress and present in person if this is accepted
Did you use an AI tool in preparing this abstract?Single choiceRequired: Options: No · Yes, for language editing only · Yes, in generating or analysing results, and it is described in the methods

What makes this form work

Preferred format is labelled as preferred

The committee decides the final format, and saying so on the form stops the disappointment that follows an abstract offered as an oral and programmed as a poster. It also tells people the truth, which is that strong posters get moved up more often than talks get moved down.

The declarations name the specific failures

Salami slicing, co-author consent, identifiable participants, third party rights. Generic honesty statements are ticked without reading. Naming the four things committees actually get burned by makes a submitter stop on at least one of them.

Co-authors go in a table, in printing order

Name, institution, city and country in five numbered rows, which is exactly what the programme needs and exactly what a free text box never produces cleanly. The row count is fixed, so the form says in order and leaves the spare rows for whoever has fewer.

Questions people ask

Why split the abstract into four boxes?

Because reviewers score the parts, not the paragraph. Separate boxes for background, methods, results and conclusion force the structure that a blind review needs, and they make a missing results section obvious at submission rather than at scoring.

Character limit or word limit?

Character limits, set on each field, because they are the ones the software can actually enforce while somebody is typing. Roughly a thousand characters is two hundred and fifty words. Four limits totalling about 2,750 characters give every reviewer the same length to read.

Who should receive the decision email?

The presenting author, and only them, which is why they are named separately from whoever fills in the form. A submitting supervisor who keeps the correspondence is how an accepted abstract ends up with nobody registered to present it in September.

How should AI use be declared?

As its own question with three real answers, separating language editing from generating or analysing results. Bundling it into a general declaration tells you nothing. Asking directly, with a note that analysis by AI belongs in the methods, gets an honest answer and a usable record.

Build your own in about a minute

The button below opens the generator with this use case already described. Change the wording to match your own, generate, then edit anything you like.

Make my abstract submission form

Other form examples

Award nomination form

Most award nominations fail because the person writing one has no idea what the judges score. This form fixes that by printing the criteria immediately above the boxes, capping each answer, and asking the three questions a panel is going to ask anyway. It is a classic form, so the criteria stay on screen while the three answers are written.

Class booking form

A single class is a small booking with a surprising number of ways to go wrong: the wrong session, a second person who was never counted, and a student who cannot grip clay for three hours. This booking form asks the four things that decide whether the class runs well and states the two rules that cause every argument. It is conversational, because it is answered on a phone from a studio Instagram post.

Call for speakers form

A conference programme committee is choosing between two hundred proposals in a fortnight. This form is built for the reading, not the writing: everything the committee scores on is asked in the same shape every time, and the things that get a talk declined are printed where a speaker sees them first. It is a classic form, so a speaker can see the whole proposal at once and balance the outline against the description.

Want the steps in the builder? Read Every form field and when to use it, then View, export and manage your responses. For everything this generator can do, see the form maker.