2020 SOT Annual Meeting Scientific Proposal Review

Question Title

* 1. Please pick your review group name from the drop-down box.

Question Title

* 2. Please enter the Session ID# for the proposal you have been asked to Endorse.

Question Title

* 3. If this proposal was developed by your component group, and your group wishes to be recognized as Primary Endorser on the proposal, please click the button below:

Primary Endorser (the proposal is being made from your component group)

Question Title

* 4. Please rank the following attributes 1 to 5. 1 is the highest quality with no modifications required. 5 is completely unacceptable.

	1 (No modifications required)	2	3	4	5 (Completely unacceptable)
The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session.	The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session. 1 (No modifications required)	The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session. 2	The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session. 3	The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session. 4	The session is well developed. Titles are provided, draft abstracts give essential details of each talk. Overlap is minimized and it is clear how each speaker's talk fits with others in the session. Speakers abstracts are consistent with the objectives of the session. 5 (Completely unacceptable)
Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation.	Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation. 1 (No modifications required)	Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation. 2	Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation. 3	Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation. 4	Speakers represent a balance of perspective and affiliation. 5 (Completely unacceptable)
The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session.	The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session. 1 (No modifications required)	The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session. 2	The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session. 3	The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session. 4	The breadth of the session is appropriate. The scope of the content will provide a high quality session. 5 (Completely unacceptable)
The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group.	The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group. 1 (No modifications required)	The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group. 2	The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group. 3	The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group. 4	The session topic is highly relevant to toxicology and to your review group. 5 (Completely unacceptable)
The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings.	The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings. 1 (No modifications required)	The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings. 2	The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings. 3	The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings. 4	The topic is timely and not redundant with topics from recent meetings. 5 (Completely unacceptable)

Question Title

* 5. Please rank this session across those of the same type that your group has been asked to endorse, i.e. if you have 10 Symposium (I, 90-minutes, or II, 165-minutes) sessions, rank them 1 to 10 with 1 being the best overall. Note: If your group decides NOT to endorse a particular proposal, DO NOT include that proposal in the ranking process here; leave this blank. For example, if you have 10 proposals and you choose not to endorse one of those, rank the proposals 1 to 9, with 1 being the best overall. You will have a chance to comment on NOT endorsing the proposal later in the review. NOTE: If you leave the "rank" box blank, you may receive an error from SurveyMonkey but your scores and comments will be received and reviewed.

	Session Type	Rank	Total Submitted
Primary session type	Primary session type Session Type menu	Primary session type Rank menu	Primary session type Total Submitted menu

Question Title

* 6. Please provide perspective on this session's strengths. If there are no strengths, please write "none" in the box.

Question Title

* 7. Please provide perspective on this session's weaknesses. If there are no weaknesses, please write "none" in the box.

Question Title

* 8. Please provide a rationale for your ranking and why this session is important to your group (e.g., Specialty Section). If your group does not endorse this proposal, please state that here.