Authors » Selection Criteria

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, unless the submitting author specifically requests a poster presentation.

The Technical Program Committees will select abstracts according to how well they address the following questions:
  1. What are the significant new accomplishments? State unambiguously whether devices have been fabricated, experimental results obtained, and provide details.
  2. What is new in relation to previous work? Provide references to relevant literature (including publications by the author's group).
  3. What is the goal or motivation of the work?
  4. What is the impact or significance of the results to the sensor/actuator/microanalysis 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.

Reasons Abstracts are not accepted:
  • Was not submitted to the MicroTAS 2020 Conference Website by deadline to send to the reviewers
  • Exceeded word limit of 500 or didn't have reference number on abstract
  • Prior Publication - If the subject matter in the abstract appears in print or on the Internet before the abstract submission deadline, it will be rejected.
  • Didn't show application was working
  • Didn't document data, details or measurement or had some relevant info missing
  • Data too generic or not enough device or process characterization
  • Results incomplete and inconclusive and/or no verification
  • Unclear concept of device, or what is "new" from your previous work or others
  • Poor images and unclear pictures or no picture of device
  • Abstract acting as a commercial instead of displaying research
  • Insufficient technical impact
  • Wrong meeting for this topic - better suited for a different meeting
  • Didn't reference previous known work or publications