Presentations are marked to allow awarding of prizes. There are four prizes to be awarded:

1. John Parker Medal for the best poster presentation
2. Ronald Edwards Medal for the best clinically based paper
3. David Cooper Prize for the best laboratory based paper
4. FACT Prize for the best paper/poster on a cancer related topic

The current scoring sheet is cumbersome, there is uncertainty about the suitability of papers for the various prizes and there can be marked variations in scoring between assessors.

These problems could be overcome by using a redesigned, semi-structured scoring sheet and having written guidelines about the eligibility of papers/posters for the various prizes. An example of this follows.

A similar mechanism should be used for abstract assessment and a matrix for this is also enclosed.

I think that the final versions should be open document available on the Society’s web site and brought to the attention of all presenters at the Annual Meeting.

If this format is adopted it may mean more work for assessors but will give us an open, transparent and fair system. This will I think be important as the meeting gains increasing credibility.

CTSNet allows a score of 1 to 10 for each abstract. Originality/relevance are scored between 1 and 4 and design, data analysis and conclusions are scored between 0 and 2 to allow a total score of between 1 and 10.

The assessment matrix should be used for each abstract, an explanation of the marking criteria is given below.

The total score for each abstract should be entered on CTSNet.

• Originality/relevance. Score 1, 2, 3 or 4. Bear in mind that this is essentially a clinical meeting. Clinical studies should be original and of importance to score 3 or 4. Laboratory work should have direct clinical relevance to score 3 or 4.
• Design. In general a case series would score 0, case control series 1 and a randomised trial 2. For laboratory work a simple observational study would score 0, controlled experiments 1 or 2.
• Data analysis. Score 0, 1 or 2 taking into account use of appropriate statistics, sample size, allowance for confounding variables etc.
• Conclusion. Score 2 if the conclusions are clearly stated and supported by the results. Score 0 or 1 if this is not the case.

There are four prizes to be awarded:

1. John Parker Medal for the best poster presentation
2. Ronald Edwards Medal for the best clinically based paper
3. David Cooper Prize for the laboratory based paper
4. FACT Prize for the best paper/poster on a cancer related topic

Each session is marked by 3 members of the Society, two of these are members of the Programme Committee, one of whom acts as the lead assessor being responsible for co-opting a 3^rd assessor and collating the assessment sheets at the end of the session. A standard marking sheet is used. The marks from the 3 assessors are averaged allowing papers to be ranked. The Programme Committee meets immediately after the Annual Meeting to allocate prizes, their decision is final. The following guidelines are used:

• Usually one paper/poster will win only one prize
• Only exceptionally will a paper/poster presented by a consultant be awarded a prize

A maximum of 20 marks are available. The marking criteria are weighted so that 25% of marks are awarded for presentation and handling of questions. The marking structure is shown overleaf.

* Completed by the abstract selection committee.

Only papers in the poster session are eligible for the Parker Medal.

The lead assessor for your session will collect your assessment sheet at the end of the session and average the marks

• Originality/relevance. Score 1 to 5. This is essentially a clinical meeting. Clinical studies should be original and of importance to score 5. Laboratory work should have direct clinical relevance to score 5.
• Design. In general a case series would score 1, case control series 2 or 3 and a randomised trial 4 or 5. For laboratory work a simple observational study would score 1 or 2, controlled experiments 3, 4 or 5.
• Data analysis. Score 1, 2 or 3 taking into account use of appropriate statistics, sample size, allowance for confounding variables etc.
• Conclusion. Score 2 if the conclusions are clearly stated and supported by the results. Score 1 if this is not the case.
• Presentation/questions. Score 1 to 5.This should take into account the clarity of the media used, of vocal delivery and should reflect the presenters overall grasp of his data and subject. Presentations that run over time should usually be scored 1.