QUOTE (edstrick @ May 10 2007, 08:55 PM)
The standard term for these is "extended abstracts". They are essentially "progress report" non-peer-reviewed short papers. They end up being excellent status reports on things that don't necessarily get professionally published (like the status of planetary cartorgraphy projects and interim investigations) and provide a quasi-real-time history of the field.
I agree that most of the LPSC-type abstracts tend to be informative and sometimes even interesting. The key point, as you note, is that these conference presentations are not peer-reviewed. It's true that extended abstracts often get expanded into full-length papers published in peer-reviewed journals like, say,
JGR-Planets,
Icarus,
Planet. Space Sci., etc., but it's just as important to note that, for various reasons, many
do not. And frankly, I've found that 10% of LPSC abstracts are iffy at best or flat out borderline kooky. That's why I never hyperventilate over the conference abstracts when they come out. I like perusing them to see what's new but I certainly don't rate them in the same category as a product that makes it through the peer review sieve.