The Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) invites abstract submissions for the 2025 SABER Annual Meeting on July 10-13, 2025 at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.

Below you will find the complete call and submission guidelines. Click here to download the official Call for Abstracts

Rubrics

• SABER 2025 Rubrics for Long Talks, Short Talks, Roundtables, Posters, and Workshop Presentations
• SABER 2025 Rubric for Systematic Reviews and Theoretical Papers (Short Talks & Posters)

Please review all of the information below and the rubrics closely!  Window for ALL Submissions:  February 10 - February 24, 2025

Submission URL: A link to the CMT submission site will be available on Feb 10

We use CMT for paper submission and reviewing*. You will need to have a CMT account in order to submit and/or be a reviewer. Please see here for instructions on how to create a CMT account: https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/docs/help/general/account-creation.html PLEASE NOTE THAT OUR CONFERENCE SUBMISSION SITE IS NOT OPEN UNTIL FEBRUARY 10. This call will be updated with the specific CMT conference submission link closer to Feb 10. 

*The Microsoft CMT service is used for managing the peer-reviewing process for this conference. This service is provided for free by Microsoft and they bore all expenses, including costs for Azure cloud services as well as for software development and support.

Abstract Reviews: It is expected that individuals who submit an abstract (or who are advisors of individuals submitting abstracts) will also serve to review others’ abstracts. We also very much welcome those not submitting an abstract to review. Creating the best meeting program possible requires that we have an active community willing to donate their time to this effort. Please complete the sign up form for reviewers by January 24th (Link: Reviewer Signup Form). Reviewing will take place between Feb 28 through March 23rd. 

Good luck, everyone! We cannot wait to see the amazing research you all will present this year!

2024-2025 SABER Abstract Committee

Lisa McDonnell (chair)
Claire Meaders (chair-elect)
Melissa Aikens
Alyssa Freeman
Grant Gardner
Cathy Ishikawa
Jenny Knight
Petra Kranzfelder
Taya Misheva
Anita Schuchardt
Maryrose Weatherton
Mary Pat Wenderoth
Michele Weston

New for 2025:

• Short talks, posters, and roundtables: These are open to mixed methods, qualitative, quantitative, practitioner-focused, systematic reviews and theoretical studies. A separate rubric will be piloted this year for systematic reviews and theoretical studies (see below).

SABER Abstract Submission Guidelines (Long Talks, Short Talks, Roundtables, Posters)

The Society for the Advancement of Biology Education Research (SABER) invites you to submit abstracts for the 2025 SABER Annual Meeting  on July 10-13, 2025 at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. Review these guidelines when preparing and submitting your abstract. In the three sections below, you will find: 

1. A summary of the four presentation formats for which you may submit an abstract 

2. An overview of the evaluation criteria used by reviewers to select abstracts 

3. Additional instructions and considerations for preparing your abstract 

It is the responsibility of the individual submitting an abstract to review the guidelines below.  Please remember to renew/register your SABER membership! 

Do not include identifying information in your abstract. To maintain a blinded review process, the title and main text of your abstract, as well as any files that you submit, cannot include the names of researchers or institutions involved in the study. If any identifying information is included, your identity will be revealed to the reviewers and may bias their review. The integrity of this blinded review process is a community effort, and we are relying on authors to submit blinded abstracts. Members of the abstracts committee are volunteers and do not have the time to remove identifiable information from abstracts. 

The review process is blinded in three ways to minimize bias. First, the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Second, the reviewers do not know the identity of the authors. Finally, the abstract committee makes decisions on abstracts based on reviewers’ scores before any identities of authors or reviewers are attached.   

A. Presentation Formats   

Abstracts may be submitted for one of five possible presentation formats described below. The character limit for your abstract is determined by the presentation format you choose. A broad range of projects are likely to be suitable for a poster presentation, roundtable, workshop, or short talk. Long talks are intended to synthesize multiple projects (published or close to publication) focused on big ideas in biology education research. If we are unable to accept your abstract in your preferred format based on reviewer recommendations, it may be selected to be presented in an alternative format. You will have an option to indicate other preferred formats in the submission process. 

1. Long Talks | Abstract word limit: 10,000 characters (including spaces)
   Long talks are open to individuals at any career stage. These 50-minute talks are intended to be a synthesis of multiple projects over several years that have been completed and/or are nearing publication and that tell a cohesive story about a central theme. There should be a track record of at least 4-5 years of research on a single topic. The most successful long talk abstracts will have made a substantial contribution to the DBER discipline. Abstracts submitted for long talks may be recommended for short talks, roundtables, or poster presentations. Long talk submissions will not count towards the three-limit on talk submissions for a lab group. Long talks are distinct from invited keynote talks. Abstracts submitted for long talks may be recommended during the review process for short talks, roundtables, or poster presentations, as per the author’s preference. 

2. Short Talks | Abstract word limit: 5,000 characters (including spaces)
   These are 15-minute presentations intended to showcase results that are complete enough for publication. Emphasis is on communicating robust findings of a complete project (i.e., appropriate and thorough), tried and tested instruments and protocols, and other developed work. Abstracts submitted for short talks may be recommended for roundtables or poster presentations. Abstracts submitted for short talks may be recommended during the review process for roundtables or poster presentations, as per the author’s preference.

3. Poster Presentation | Abstract word limit: 3000 characters (including spaces)
   Poster presentations are ideal for sharing a new or developing project or gaining specific advice on a particular set of data. Projects that are still early in development are encouraged, including studies with promising, yet minimal, outcomes data, or studies with inconclusive results. 

4. Roundtables | Abstract word limit: 3000 characters (including spaces)
   Roundtables are one-hour, small-group structured discussions on similar research projects that are works in progress. The goal for the roundtable session is to facilitate interaction between author/s and attendees to get feedback. Author will be limited to a one-page summary (text or visual), including focused discussion questions, to share with session attendees. Each author has ~10 minutes to present their work, with the remainder of the hour for feedback, suggestions, and larger group discussion from all presenters and non-presenting participants. The short presentations are intended as a springboard for interaction, discussion, and critique. Abstracts submitted for roundtables may be recommended for poster presentations. Abstracts submitted for roundtables may also be recommended during the review process for poster presentations, as per the author’s preference.

5. Workshops | 2 page submission 
   Workshops are three-hour participant-interactive sessions designed to provide participants with skills to enhance their teaching and research. Workshops should draw on DBER research. For example, they could provide attendees with skills to enhance their DBER research approaches, or how to implement DBER into your classroom (e.g., evidence-based practices).  They should be interactive and participant-centered.  Submitters should consider the audience at SABER (Faculty, post-docs, grad or undergraduate students, etc. who engage in DBER) and choose a topic that will be broadly applicable; however, niche topics that may be novel and have potentially broad interest will certainly be considered.  The workshop will be a 3 hour block scheduled for Thursday morning prior to the start of the SABER meeting.

B. Instructions Short Talks, Long Talks, Posters, Roundtables and Workshops

1. When writing your abstract, please refer to the rubrics for evaluating submissions.

2. When you are ready to submit your abstract online, carefully follow the instructions detailed on the submission site for uploading your abstract. 

3. After adding your abstract information, you will be taken to a screen with all of the abstract reviewers (titled “Edit Conflicts of Interest”). Please check off all individuals who would have a conflict of interest with your submission, including colleagues from your institution and collaborators on this or other projects.

4. If you would like an email confirmation of your submission after submitting your abstract, please click the “email” button at the top right corner of the submission system after submitting your abstract. 

B1. Additional Instructions for Short Talks, Long Talks, Posters and Roundtables

1. Do not include figures or a reference list in your abstract (in-text citations in author, year format are appropriate). 

2. You may submit as many abstracts as you would like, but: 

   • Any one individual can only be a presenter for a single talk (long or short).

   • A maximum of three abstracts will be accepted as short talks from any single lab in order to promote diversity at SABER. A research lab is defined as a group of individuals working under a PI (where a PI is an individual eligible to serve as PI/Co-PI on an NSF (or similar) grant).  A collaborative proposal across research groups will count as one of these three abstracts. A nomination or accepted Wenderoth Invited Plenary talk does not count towards the three abstract maximum.  

   • If an individual submits more than one talk abstract or has their name as an author and/or listed as PI for more than three talk abstracts, the abstracts sent out for review will be decided at random. 

   • It is expected that multiple PIs working on a common project will submit no more than 2 abstracts related to this project. 
     PLEASE NOTE:  The purpose of limiting abstracts from individuals/lab groups is to increase the diversity of presentations at SABER. We believe that you serve as a better gate-keeper in making decisions about the best work to put forward than the reviewers do. So we kindly ask you to consider carefully the submissions to be made  and limit your submissions on your end (rather than having reviewers determine this).  We appreciate your help in this effort. 

3. It is expected that all abstract submissions will be “new” work that has either not been presented at SABER or will be significantly novel compared to work previously presented at SABER. 
4. For long talks, in addition to an abstract, you will be asked to submit a paragraph describing your research trajectory in DBER that includes key related/prior publications. Max 300 words. To keep reviews blinded, this paragraph will only be available to the abstract committee. This paragraph will be submitted as a response to a question during the abstract submission.

B2. Additional Instructions for Workshops

1. Your proposal should include the following in a single two-page max document to be uploaded to the CMT Portal (word doc or PDF):
   • Category (DBER research skills, implementing DBER in your class, other) 
   • Title 
   • Authors/Presenters and qualification statements: Provide a short biography for each facilitator, providing evidence of their expertise and describing their experience relevant to the proposed workshop (limit to 2000 characters total, including spaces).
   • Abstract: Abstract to be used in the conference program (limit to 4000 characters, including spaces). 
   • Expected Learning Outcomes: List up to 5 tangible workshop outcomes (limit to 1000 characters, including spaces)  
   • Workshop timeline and description of activities with participant engagement techniques. Explain how the workshop will actively engage participants. Workshops are not intended to be extended talks and should involve participant activities for the majority of the 3-hour session. (Limit to 2000 characters, including spaces) 
2. Each research team may submit as many workshop proposals as they would like, but no more than one workshop per research team will be selected.  (Please note: Workshop facilitators can also apply for long/short talks, posters, and roundtables)  
3. The lead facilitator for each workshop will receive funds to cover a one-night stay in the conference hotel. SABER will collect a $25 fee from attendees to cover the cost of these accommodations. 

C. Evaluation Criteria for Short Talks, Long Talks, Posters and Roundtables and Workshops

All abstracts for long talks, short talks and roundtables and workshops will be reviewed by multiple reviewers from the SABER community. These reviewers will recommend abstracts based on the abstract rubric established by the SABER Abstract Committee and final decisions will be made by the Abstract Committee. A copy of the rubrics for all formats is posted on the SABER website.

If we have enough reviewers, we are hoping to provide reviews for posters as part of the educational experience.

All posters will be accepted. 

Be sure to consult the correct rubric for the chosen presentation format. 

• SABER 2025 Rubrics for Long Talks, Short Talks, Roundtables, Posters, and Workshop Presentations
• SABER 2025 Rubric for Systematic Reviews and Theoretical Papers (Short Talks & Posters)

For long talks, short talks and posters, while different considerations will be applied to each presentation format, all formats will be evaluated in four areas; PLEASE NOTE:  Your abstract should include each of these headings followed by a colon so that reviewers can easily find them, e.g., “RESEARCH DESIGN:  For this project, we investigated…”: 

1. Study Context: Strong abstracts will clearly describe the study’s context and/or literature base, including a few key in-text citations in author, year format. Do not include a reference list. A sound rationale (e.g., gap in the literature) should be provided as well as an appropriate model, theoretical framework, or philosophy of the study. 
   
   

2. Study Design. Strong abstracts will provide a clear description of the question and/or education problem being addressed. The abstract should provide enough information to demonstrate that the study’s design and methods are appropriate and well-aligned with the research question or problem being investigated.
   
   
3. Analyses and Interpretations. Strong abstracts will clearly describe the analysis of the data, include a description of key results (e.g., numerical results and/or examples of qualitative data as appropriate to the study), and provide some interpretation of the findings. All claims made in the abstract should be clearly supported by evidence or reasoning and appropriate to the focus of the study and its methodology. Reviewers will also consider the appropriate level of completeness of the project based on the presentation format selected. While long and short talks are expected to have more thorough analyses (e.g., appropriate statistics, example quotes and codes, inclusion of diverse data streams, closer to publication), roundtables and poster presentations may include more preliminary data analyses.
   
   
4. Contribution. Strong abstracts should add to, refine, or refute the literature base in biology education. The abstract should provide clear implications for teaching, learning, or research in biology. Reviewers will also consider whether the study is likely to be of general interest to SABER attendees.