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.
The Technical Program Committee 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). See example of references here
- What is the goal or motivation of the work?
- What is the impact or significance of the results to the MEMS field?
Authors should not submit work that has already been presented at another conference or that has been published in other literature. In the text and through reference to the literature, authors should clearly delineate how the submitted work differs from other recent work by the same research group, or by other groups.
The IEEE MEMS Conference requires originality at the time of the Conference to maintain the flagship character of the Conference. Submission of an abstract for review and subsequent acceptance is considered by the committee as an agreement that the work will not be placed in the public domain by the author prior to the conference. Publication of the paper or significant portion of the work elsewhere prior to the conference start date of 21 January 2018 will yield withdrawal from presentation at the Conference and exclusion from the Conference Proceedings and IEEE Xplore, on a decision by the Conference Chairs.
Contributed papers will be considered for either oral or poster presentation unless the authors specifically request the poster session.
Reasons Abstracts are not accepted:
- Was not submitted to the MEMS 2018 Conference website by deadline to send to the reviewers
- Did not adhere to the guidelines set forth by the Double Blind Review process and explained in the abstract template
- Exceeded word limit of 600
- Did not have reference number on abstract (this is the only way your abstract will be identified)
- Didn't reference previous known work or publications as outlined on Double Blind Information page.
- Prior Publication
- Didn't show application was working
- Results incomplete and inconclusive and/or no verification
- Didn't document data, details or measurement or had some relevant info missing
- Poor images and unclear pictures or no picture of device
- Unclear concept of device, or what is "new" from your previous work or others
- Data too generic or not enough device or process characterization
- Insufficient technical impact
- Wrong meeting for this topic - better suited for a different meeting