Submission Guidelines and Tips

How to make a successful application

Full name of presenting author - the person submitting the form should also be the presenting author.

E.g., Akim Williams

Title - Titles should be concise and descriptive. They should neither be vague nor solely general descriptions of the topic. Aim for 10 words or less. It is best to highlight specific findings or key points.

For example, instead of using a title such as “executive function and exercise,” try “physical activity increases executive function.”

E.g., Thinking about the future interferes with semantically related memories

Authors - Please include all people that significantly contributed to the research or paper, including any faculty mentors or non-UCSC collaborators. Also include their affiliations (department, institution). Separate each author with a semicolon.

In many disciplines, author order matters. Be sure to consult with a research mentor about author order if there is more than one author. If you are submitting a collaborative project with multiple authors, be sure you agree who will be the presenting author and submitting the application via the portal.

E.g., Akim Williams (Psychology Department, UCSC); Talia Waltzer (Psychology Department, UCSC); Leila Takayama (Psychology Department, UCSC)

Faculty sponsor - As a general rule, having a faculty member sponsor your project is better. The sponsor does not need to be a collaborator on the project, but can be. For example, if you submit a project that was completed as a part of a course, you can ask the instructor to sponsor you. If you work in a research lab or collaborate with faculty members, you could ask your research mentor.

E.g., Leila Takayama (Psychology Department, UCSC) - instructor for Research Methods course

Abstract - Abstracts must be no more than 125 words long! See “How to structure the abstract” below; keep in mind we’ll use these abstracts for the symposium program booklet.

Keywords - What are the main concepts that are being explored in your paper? List up to 6 keywords or core terms, separating each with a semicolon.

Tip: It might be useful to look for the keywords used in papers that discuss similar topics.

E.g., Memory; Forgetting; Constructive Episodic Simulation; Retrieval-Induced Forgetting

Presentation format - Presentations will either be in the form of a poster or talk. If your presentation needs to be in a particular format, you should pick that one. Note that you will have the highest chance of being accepted if you choose the flexible option (click the button that says “either option”). If you do this, you should be prepared to present your work in whichever format it is accepted as.

How to structure the abstract

Experiment-Centered Projects

Regarding the content of your abstract, Purdue Owl suggests: “Your abstract should contain at least your research topic, research questions, participants, methods, results, data analysis, and conclusions. You may also include possible implications of your research and future work you see connected with your findings.”

https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

Published papers typically have abstracts between 150-250 words long. However, your submission for this symposium should be no more than 125 words; so, you might not include everything Owl suggests. Depending on the publication outlet, some abstracts may communicate to a specific audience in relevant disciplines. For SURU-HASS, your abstract should be tailored for a diverse audience of researchers or students interested in research. Expect people in different fields to read your abstract.

Non-Experimental Projects

Below is a description of “basic components of an abstract in any discipline” written by Leah Carroll, Ph.D., Director of Office of Undergraduate Research at UC Berkeley.

1) Motivation/problem statement:Why do we care about the problem? What practical, scientific, theoretical or artistic gap is your research filling?

2) Methods/procedure/approach:What did you actually do to get your results? (e.g. analyzed 3 novels, completed a series of 5 oil paintings, interviewed 17 students)

3) Results/findings/product: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn/invent/create?

4) Conclusion/implications: What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem/gap identified in step 1? However, it's important to note that the weight accorded to the different components can vary by discipline. For models, try to find abstracts of research that is similar to your research.

http://hsp.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/HOW%20TO%20WRITE%20AN%20ABSTRACT.pdf

In your abstract, do not leave room for confusion but do not over-simplify either. It is easy to forget that jargon words are jargon. Ask a friend who is not majoring in your field of research to evaluate how your abstract’s message comes across. It can have rich vocabulary, but it shouldn't be impossible to understand!

Abstract Example (124 words):

Research suggests that human memory is constructed, not a perfect recording, and that thinking about the future employs a similar process. We hypothesized that Retrieval-Induced Forgetting (defined as: recalling a memory may inhibit similar memories) operates in both future and past thinking. To test this, we asked 24 participants to write words associated to a list of selected words (task 1); in task 3, they attempted to recall the associations they had written. In task 2, between the aforementioned, 12 participants wrote sentences about the selected words in a future context (future-thinking group) while the other 12 did math problems (control group). During the recall task, the future-thinking group forgot more word associations than the control group did, supporting our hypothesis.

Evaluation/review of submissions and the applicant-selection process

The reviewers will be selecting applicants to showcase their work either via a verbal presentation or a visual poster. The selection process is blind of author name. Because not all applicants can be accepted, here are some criteria reviewers will use to select those submissions that will be accepted:

Potential to contribute to knowledge: Does your project contribute something meaningful to its surrounding field? Does it open up doors for other similar projects? Does your project facilitate a discussion about future research regarding this topic?

Applied impacts: Does your project contribute to societal advancement or pave way for new technology? How will your research help individuals, communities, or the field in general? In what ways will your research propel us closer to these goals?

Soundness of research design: Does your research have validity? That is, does that data reflect the phenomenon you intended to observe? Make sure you have eliminated biases and controlled for extraneous variables.

Clarity: Present your research in the clearest way possible. As reviewers, we need to clearly understand what was done, why it was done, and what the findings are.

Credibility of research (optional): Do you have a faculty member supporting or sponsoring your project? This can be an instructor for the class you’re doing the research for.