2017 Call for Abstracts


call for abstracts | digital poster construction | presentation formats | society prizes


Important Dates  

January 15 22, 2017

Society Prize Application Deadline 


January 15 22, 2017

Abstract Submission Deadline


End of March, 2017

Acceptance notices will be sent

April 30, 2017

Authors accepted to present MUST register for the Congress


The Abstract program will be finalized at this date.


Only Abstracts with presenting Authors registered to attend the Congress, will be included in Abstract Program

All abstracts must be submitted online – Paper submissions will not be accepted.

Abstract Guidelines

  • Abstracts will be graded for quality.
  • Abstracts are not to exceed 200 words, excluding title and authors.
  • Abstract titles are restricted to 140 characters.
  • Each abstract should consist of four separate paragraphs. These should be labeled Background, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.
  • Each abstract should, briefly and concisely, describe the problem or issue being addressed, how the study was performed, the salient results or findings, and what the authors conclude from these results.
  • Research presented in abstracts must conform to MRC guidelines for experimental procedures. All investigations involving humans and animals reported in CNSF publications must have been conducted in conformity with these principles.

Conflict of Interest: The CNSF requires that authors will declare any financial interest in a company (or its competitors) that makes a product discussed in the abstract.

Abstracts Submitted for Society Prizes

Individuals, who submit an expanded abstract for consideration for one of the Society Awards, must also submit their abstract to the CNSF Congress, on the official online abstract submission form.

How Abstracts are Judged and Assigned

Abstracts submitted for presentation will be reviewed by the Scientific Program Committee in January and February. Notification of acceptance and schedule information will be sent in March. Abstracts will be judged on a scale of 1 to 4 according to certain criteria; 1. impact and relevance, 2. scope, experience and research team, 3. significance of findings and results, 4. comprehensiveness and written quality of abstract.  

Assigning Abstracts to Sessions

The Scientific Program Committee assigns papers to sessions on substantive grounds in an attempt to make the scientific program as strong and attractive as possible.

Author Registration for the 2017 Congress

All authors selected to present at the Congress, must register for the Congress by April 30, 2017. Authors not registered on May 1, 2017 will have their presentations pulled from all Congress publications and onsite activities.

 Instructions for Online Abstract Submissions

  • Authors are invited to submit an abstract, on or before January 15 22, 2017.
  • Please have full contact information for the submitting author and all potential presenting authors.
  • Spell out all unusual abbreviations in full.
  • When ready to submit, click on the “Online Abstract Submission” link below and follow the instructions.
  • On completion of your submission you will receive a confirmation by email. If you do not receive an email within 12 hours, please contact cnsf@scolars.com .
  • Acceptance notices will be sent by e-mail in March. If you have not received a notice by the end of March, please contact cnsf@scolars.com .
  • You must be registered for the 2017 Congress by April 30th or your abstract will be removed from the program.

Detailed Instruction for Submitting Abstracts

Abstract Subject Categories

Multiple disease areas in Neuroscience require a multidisciplinary approach; therefore, categories for research presentations are categorized by disease areas. Please select the ONE research category from the following list that BEST matches your abstract submission based upon the disease studied; whether your abstract deals with basic biomedical sciences, surgery, neurophysiology or medical (neurology) therapy.

 NOTE: Authors are asked to carefully select the category under which they submit their abstracts. Poor or inappropriate category selection may result in the rejection of the submission.


General Categories

General Neurosurgery
Pediatric Neurosurgery
General Neurology
General Pediatric Neurology

Multidisciplinary Categories

Neurovascular and neurointerventional
Neurocritical care

Neurosurgical subspecialties

Spine and Peripheral Nerve surgery
Functional Neurosurgery and Pain

Neurology and Child Neurology subspecialties

Neuromuscular Disease
Movement Disorders
Dementia and cognitive disorders
MS / Neuroinflammatory disease

Neurophysiology subspecialties



Neuroscience education
Ethical, legal, societal, historical aspects of neuroscience
Advocacy, research networks, knowledge translation 

Abstract Review Criteria

4 – Exceptional

  • RCT: local, national or international
  • Clinical or basic science/lab or health systems research, in which a specific question has been asked, an investigation protocol has been developed, the study is powered adequately, statistical analyses are appropriate, the conclusions clearly stated, and there is potential for high impact.
  • A single patient or family study that establishes the presence of a hitherto un-described disease or kindred.
  • Unique historical research or educational study performed rigorously.

3 – Accept

  • Retrospective patient-based study that includes robust data/observations on an adequate # patients/subjects to allow a confident conclusion.
  • A single patient or family study, basic research study, or health systems study that adds new information to the field.
  • Less rigorous or unique historical, educational, basic science or health systems study.

2 – Borderline Accept

  • Retrospective patient-based study with just a handful of patients and that allows reasonable although essentially unsubstantiated conclusions to be drawn.
  • A single patient or family study, basic research study, or health systems study that adds NO new information to the field of neurosciences, but is considered useful or confirmatory information to bring to attendees.
  • Single patient case reports usually of rare or unusual conditions that essentially add nothing to the body of knowledge and are unlikely to be of much or any interest to attendees.
  • Case reports that denigrate the skills of other clinicians involved and/or that make a diagnosis entirely based on clinical opinion (“this is the diagnosis because I say it is....”).
  • Basic research or health systems research which adds NO new information to the field and is unlikely to be of much or any interest to attendees.
  • Minimal historic anecdotes.

1 – Not suitable for acceptance (Reject)

  • Not relevant to neurosciences
  • Incomprehensible language
  • Significant ethical concerns

Accepted abstracts will be published in the Canadian Journal of Neurological Sciences and will be presented at the 2017 Congress