Home / Program / Scientific Committee
Scientific Committee
Six reviewers across Hong Kong, France and the United States. Every abstract goes to this panel before any decision is made.
- Committee
Yan Liu
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
- Committee
Corinne Isnard Bagnis
APHP-Sorbonne University, France
- Committee
Dr.Angelo Reynolds
Doctor, Professional Speaker, Trainer, and Thought Leader
- Committee
Nick Smith
SUNY Fredonia, United States
- Committee
Alvin Luk
HuidaGene Therapeutics, USA
- Committee
Zarlie Carlino
Certified Psychiatric Rehabilitation Practitioner, United States
What happens to an abstract after you send it
Review
Nothing is accepted automatically. Registering and submitting are separate processes on purpose — paying a fee does not secure a slot, and being accepted does not register you.
The three things reviewers score
• Is the work sound? Whether the method supports the claim, whether the sample or dataset carries the conclusion, and whether limitations are stated rather than left out.
• Does it belong here? Whether the abstract genuinely sits in one of the 25 tracks. This is the most common avoidable rejection.
• Does it add something? A new finding, a method used somewhere it has not been, or a service evaluation others could learn from. A competent literature summary is not enough on its own.
Turnaround
Decisions are returned within two days of submission. There is no revise-and-resubmit stage, so send the version you want judged. Declined abstracts get a brief reason — usually fit, or a conclusion the data does not carry.
Why the panel is mixed
The committee spans clinical practice, academic research, psychiatric rehabilitation and therapeutics, across three countries. That mix is deliberate. Work on genomic therapeutics and work on community rehabilitation need different readers, and a panel drawn from one institution or one country would favour its own conventions without intending to.
Conflicts of interest
Reviewers stand down from any abstract submitted by their own institution, a current collaborator or a student they supervise. Where that leaves a submission short of readers it moves to another panel member with relevant expertise rather than going through unexamined.
Joining the committee
The panel is refreshed for each conference, and we are usually looking for doctorally prepared clinicians and researchers with a publication record and some review or editorial experience — particularly in areas where submissions are outrunning our current coverage. Write to info@pubscholars.org with your credentials and review interests.