00:28:52 Kay Igwe: New York, EST 00:29:01 Zachary Long: Iowa, CST 00:29:05 Ralf Mekle: Hello from Berlin, Germany! 14:30 it is here. 00:29:06 Chris Keen: Michigan EST 00:29:06 Haneefah Brnawi: Hi, LONDON 00:29:07 Busra Mutlu Ipek: good afternoon 🙂 Büşra from London 00:29:08 Viktoria Gorobets: netherlands 00:29:10 Manisha Shrestha: Hi Everybody, I am Manisha from Germany. It's 2:30pm 00:29:13 Raymi Ramirez: Good morning! I’m in Los Angeles in PST timezone! It’s 5:30am here ! 00:29:14 Nisha Chauhan: India 00:29:14 Thandiwe Pocha: Malawi 00:29:17 Durgesh Dwivedi: India 00:29:18 Heng Sun: New Haven, EST 00:29:20 Amy Sylvester: Netherlands 00:29:21 Johanna Thomä: Germany 00:29:21 Mariana Rautenbach: Durban South Africa 2h30pm 00:29:22 Matías Ávila: hi from Chile 00:29:23 Helena Schulz: Germany 00:29:24 Jae-Youn Keum: South Korea! 00:29:25 Fatimah Docrat: Good afternoon. Durban, South Africa 00:29:26 Helena Durrant: Good afternoon from Leiden 🌷 00:29:29 Poonam Choudhary: India 00:29:29 Jeanette Deck: Switzerland 00:29:33 martin gathogo: Good Morning. Nairobi,Kenya, 1530hrs 00:29:34 Catarina Passarinho: Hello from Portugal! 13h30 here :) 00:29:34 Aya Ahmad: Cairo, 15:30! 00:29:45 Noriyuki Tawara: Japan, 21:30 00:30:05 Esha Baidya Kayal: Good Evening from India 00:30:15 Elham Karimigharighi: Hi from Baltimore Maryland US it’s 8:32am 00:30:51 Esha Baidya Kayal: at India 6:00 pm 00:40:20 Ralf Mekle: Is repetition, even using the same words, allowed or even encouraged in synopsis and impact and abstract conlcusion? I always try to rephrase the corresponding sentences, however, this can be quite a pain, in particular for a non-native speaker. 00:42:40 Brian Hargreaves, Ph.D./ Speaker: Good question - we should let Dr. Burstein comment. My thought is you want a balance. They should be consistent but don’t repeat it exactly. You *can* use AI to help rephrase, but check it carefully(!). 00:44:06 Brian Hargreaves, Ph.D./ Speaker: Good question. We should let Dr. Burstein comment. My thought is you want a balance. They should be consistent, but don’t repeat it exactly - that is a waste of space. You *can* use AI/chatGPT to help rephrase, but check it carefully(!) 00:45:39 Mathabo Darisene: No 00:45:39 Ralf Mekle: Yes 00:45:40 Vivian Truong: Yes 00:45:42 Ben Neijndorff: Yes 00:45:46 Zachary Long: yes 00:45:47 Walter Backes: yes 00:45:48 Ricardo Rios-Carrillo: yeahh. 00:45:48 Sofya Koryagina: Not entirely 00:45:49 Asako Yamamoto: Almost 00:45:51 Rebecca Lee: Yes 00:45:51 Haneefah Brnawi: 30% of it 00:45:52 Edson Ricardo Junior: No 00:45:52 Andrea Dell'Orco: almost 00:45:53 Poonam Choudhary: yes 00:54:23 Walter Backes: Do you have anu advice what part of the circles to write first? 00:55:20 Ralf Mekle: Thanks a lot! 00:57:09 Katy Keenan: If you have any questions, please do type them in the chat box. (We cannot take verbal questions.) 01:09:13 Vivian Truong: Arrows 01:09:15 Raymi Ramirez: Aide for eyes to understand context 01:09:15 Jana Losch: Arrows 01:09:16 Jeanette Deck: The arrows 01:09:16 Sofya Koryagina: inclusion of pointed arrows 01:09:18 Ralf Mekle: Not overloaded with details 01:09:18 Chris Keen: Immediatly understandable 01:09:18 Kay Igwe: It’s clear and points the viewer to the point 01:09:21 Rebecca Lee: Arrows/pointers 01:09:22 Edson Ricardo Junior: Not polluted 01:09:23 Jim Holmes: cryptic use of acronyms 01:09:23 Sima Soltanpour: Denoising 01:09:25 Jie Xiang: Draws attention to where you want the reader to look 01:09:29 Ilse Peek: text is clearly readable 01:09:30 Haneefah Brnawi: Have some parameters on them 01:09:33 Matías Ávila: arrows pointing at some interesting things 01:09:36 Sima Soltanpour: Arrows 01:09:41 Jeanette Deck: Acquisition time 01:09:52 Sima Soltanpour: Clear presentation 01:22:10 Durgesh Dwivedi: Great presentation, Deb and Brian. Question for Brian: Q1: What are some common mistakes that lead to abstract rejections? Q2: What distinguishes an oral abstract from a poster abstract (may be a reviewer perspective)? 01:22:39 Raymi Ramirez: For the AI section, there has been a lot of discussion about AI detection and its accuracy , how will this be used during the reviewer process? Will we be denied conference access based on a general AI search (even if it’s a hallucination result) ? 01:23:01 Olivia Eshleman: Should you have publishing of a paper in mind when writing an abstract, and is there a way to develop an abstract that will flow more easily into development of a paper? 01:23:28 Ralf Mekle: What is a "suitable" number of references for an abstract? As an abstract reviewer I feel that such a list of references cannot include all relevant work, since it has to be limited. 01:24:07 Vivian Truong: What are some credentials to become a volunteer to be a reviewer? 01:26:15 Katy Keenan: @Vivian: We want our volunteer reviewers to be knowledgeable about MRI. We do accept early career people to review (e.g., masters and PhD students). All abstracts are reviewed by at least 3 reviewers. 01:26:27 Kay Igwe: The review process changed for last year, where there were 3 questions with a 10-level score. I thought that in vivo data was not necessary for the abstract; however, one of the 3 questions had to do with clinical relevance. For more technical abstracts, how do you get around not having in vivo data, or is this a requirement? 01:26:53 Katy Keenan: @Kay: We appreciate that issue, and we are removing the clinical aspect from the review process this year. 01:27:09 Kay Igwe: Thank you. 01:27:57 Nisha Chauhan: what if our abstract is more clinically relevant rather than technical? 01:28:52 Raymi Ramirez: Thank you so much for your answers ! 01:29:17 Katy Keenan: @Ralf: Yes, I agree that the abstract has a limited number of references. However, as a reviewer, I have seen some abstracts without any references, and this is clearly an omission. I think it is important to include key references, though it is hard to say the exact number. 01:29:26 Shivam Angiras: Thank you so much for this insightful session. 01:30:08 Katy Keenan: @Nisha: We definitely want clinical work! We decided to remove the clinical or technical emphasis questions. The review process will focus on quality and impact. Both clinical and technical have a home at ISMRM. That combination is what makes our society so interesting and strong. 01:30:33 Olivia Eshleman: Thank you! 01:30:50 Nisha Chauhan: Thank you. 01:31:18 Jana Losch: How can you volunteer for being a reviewer? 01:31:34 Katy Keenan: @Jana: There will be a call for reviewers in Sept. Please look for the email! 01:31:39 Michael Dada: Many thanks for this excellent session! 01:31:58 Jeanette Deck: Thank you! 01:32:05 Jana Losch: Thanks 01:32:10 Leon Janse van Rensburg: Thank you! Excellent and most useful. 01:32:12 S Senthil Kumaran: Thank you very much Deb and Brian for the wonderful overview 01:32:25 S Senthil Kumaran: Thanks Katy and Harry for putting together 01:32:27 Jim Holmes: Thank you, this was a wonderful session! 01:32:29 Ramya Ganapathi: hank you for the insights 01:32:30 Vivian Truong: Thank you!! 01:32:31 Jae-Youn Keum: Thank you! 01:32:32 Helena Schulz: thank you 01:32:34 Edson Ricardo Junior: Thank you 01:32:34 Asako Yamamoto: Thank you so much! 01:32:39 Maarten Naeyaert: thank you 01:32:42 Akshat Rastogi: Hello, how do I get to know about the volunteer program? 01:32:46 Manoe Meunier: thank you 01:32:46 Esha Baidya Kayal: Thank you 01:32:49 Haneefah Brnawi: Thank you, this is really helpful! 01:32:50 Fatimah Docrat: Thank you 01:32:50 Matías Ávila: Thank you 01:33:21 ARPITA JAISWAL: thank you