The role of Reviewers
Reviewers are pivotal in ensuring the quality of the papers and thus the Conference. Reviewers provide an independent assessment of the quality of each submission. Whilst Reviewers have considerable latitude, and a considerable responsibility, for interpretation of the concept of quality, we hope that the notes below will help us towards a reasonable uniformity of perception of quality standards, a fair, unbiased review process, and helpful, formative feedback for authors.
Papers under review and completed Review Forms are confidential and the contents are not to be revealed to other persons.
Double blind reviewing
Ascilite Conferences use a double blind review process. That is, reviewers are not given the names and institutional affiliations of the authors, and authors are not given the names of the reviewers assigned to their article. If you feel that your objectivity as a Reviewer has been compromised because you have identified an author, either inadvertently through routine checking of references, or other avenues, please advise the Program Committee and we will seek a replacement reviewer if that is appropriate.
Ascilite Conferences commission three double blind reviews for each full paper and concise paper proposal, although in the event of non-arrival of a review, Committee may elect to proceed with only two reviews. Reviews may be supplemented, if appropriate, with non-blind reviews obtained from members of the Committee.
Selecting and appointing Reviewers
Reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience in areas relevant for the Conference. It is an honorary role, being rewarded only by acknowledgement in the online and USB drive versions of the Proceedings. Each ascilite Conference relies to a large extent upon Reviewers commissioned for previous Conferences. This has helped us sustain a uniformly high standard of reviewing over the years, as most of our Reviewers are 'experienced'. The ranks of 'experienced' Reviewers are supplemented from other sources, such as AJET reviewers and authors. It is not necessary for Reviewers to be members of ascilite, or to be registrants for the Conference. Ascilite Conferences also have an established policy of encouraging the induction of 'novice' Reviewers, who will broaden the Reviewer pool, and be in line to become the next generation of 'experienced' Reviewers. This policy is facilitated by ensuring as best we can that a review allocated to a 'novice' Reviewer is also allocated to 'experienced' Reviewers, and is backed up by Program Committee reviews, if appropriate.
The review process: Accessing papers and forms
We anticipate that each Reviewer will be allocated 2 to 3 papers, usually a mix of full and concise papers, made available on 4 September, with a due date 25 September. You will be advised by email about your login name (it will be your email address) and password for your access to the Conference paper review system, via the URL:
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/review/Review.php
Whilst three weeks may seem to be a hectic deadline, it is the same as review process deadlines used for past Conferences. Given that ascilite Conferences offer authors the latest possible submission dates, it is essential that Reviewers maintain good turnaround times. If you find that you must call for help and seek re-allocation of all or part of the reviewing assigned to you, it will be vitally important to inform the Program Committee sooner rather than later!
After downloading and reading the papers assigned to you, we recommend that you compose your 'Summary of contribution' and 'Detailed comments' (see below) in your word processor. Save your composition for doing 'copy and paste' entries during your next login to the Conference paper review system. If using an MS Word format, keep it simple, because MyReview will record your entry in plain text format, and advice to authors will made in plain text email. For example, separate paragraphs with a blank line and do not use the 'space after paragraph' facility; use asterisks instead of an automated, bulleted list; etc.
The review criteria
Reviewers use the criteria outlined below to assign ratings and make recommendations to the Committee on acceptance, conditional acceptance or rejection of submissions. Offers of acceptance specify a publication and presentation format, and include advice on any required or desirable revisions.
Category |
Description |
Weight |
Suitability |
Relevance to conference theme, sub themes and intended audience. |
20% |
Quality of research |
The paper is original, and clearly identifies broad and insightful implications for theory and/or policy and/or practice. |
15% |
Literature review |
Clearly situated in current literature and/or policy with well articulated conceptual or theoretical framework and related research questions that address a novel issue(s). |
15% |
Method |
Adopts an appropriate research methodology for the purpose of the paper. |
15% |
Analysis |
Insightful critical analysis and interpretation that leads to clear, logical findings, conclusions and implications for theory and/or policy and/or practice. |
20% |
Writing |
Ease of reading, grammar, spelling, format, referencing details. |
15% |
Owing to the tight turnaround times for the review and notification processes, the Program Committee will not be able to provide detailed formative feedback to authors who are not offered their first preference of publication and presentation formats, or to authors of rejected submissions.
As with previous ascilite conferences, one of the purposes for the review process is to obtain DEEWR (2009) recognition of the work, in the Conference publication category. To this end, the Committee confirms that refereed proposals accepted for ascilite 2009 Conference publication will:
• Meet the definition of research in relation to creativity, originality, and increasing humanity's stock of knowledge;
• Be selected on the basis of a DEEWR compliant peer review process (independent, qualified expert review; double blind reviews conducted on the full articles, prior to publication);
• Be published and presented at a conference having national and international significance as evidenced by registrations and participation;
• Be made available widely through the Conference web site (DEEWR, 2009).
Applying the review criteria
You will have to use your own best judgment on the six criteria listed above, weighted as shown. For each criterion you will be asked to select a rating from the seven point scale:
Strong Accept |
Accept |
Weak Accept |
Neutral |
Weak Reject |
Reject |
Strong Reject |
After giving ratings for the paper under review, you will be asked to 'self rate' on a three point 'Reviewer's expertise' scale.
Next you will find two free form text entry boxes:
1. Summary of contribution. Please provide one to several sentences summarising your overall impression and recommendation (you do not have to summarise the paper).
2. Detailed comments. In plain text format, these will be the principal formative feedback. Here you should specify revisions that are to be completed to improve the quality of the paper. You could give amplifying comments and brief, illustrative examples to help authors understand the summative judgments that you have given under review criteria ratings. Please remember that the aim here is to encourage authors to improve their work, not only for this Conference, but also for future conference and journal submissions. It is a section in which you can emphasise 'how you may progress...', in contrast to emphasising 'your work is bad because...'. Another aim in this section is to alert the Proceedings editors to minor or major revisions that they should check, upon receiving a revised version from the authors. Owing to production time constraints, it won't be possible to send revised versions to the original or new Reviewers.
The detailed comments test entry box is followed by the Yes or No question, "Candidate for the best paper award?" This item provides the Program Committee with a basis for compiling a short list for determining one to several Outstanding Paper Awards. In general, for 'Yes' the 'average' rating will be higher than midway between 'Accept' and 'Strong Accept'. Both 'Full' and 'Concise' papers may be eligible.
Comments for Program Committee (not shown to the authors) is another free form text entry box, where you may add any special, confidential comments for 'Program Committee eyes only', that may assist the Program Committee with the selection process, and in using its discretion when providing feedback to authors. Other matters that you may raise could include alerting the Committee to instances of excessive repetition of previously published work, or inadequate acknowledgment of the work of other writers. If you feel it is appropriate, in this text entry box you may recommend that Committee consider offering acceptance in the poster category.
Full papers and concise papers are to be reviewed using the same criteria, using your own best judgment about how well the authors have used their chosen length. The 'amount' of research represented in a concise paper may be about one third to one half the 'amount' in a full paper, but the quality is to be the same. However, with concise papers Reviewers can allow a weighting towards the statement in Call for proposals that concise papers are "… for discussion of key directions in research informed practice, for presentation of works in progress, reports on specialised topics, pilot studies or brief reports on innovative practice in technology supported teaching and learning".
In some cases, the Reviewer may feel that it is appropriate to recommend to the Program Committee that the authors be offered a format differing from the format they nominated, e.g., an outstanding 'Concise' paper may be given a 'Traditional' 25 minute presentation slot. However, please note that some changes of format cannot be offered. For example, changes from 'Concise' to 'Full' in publication format cannot be offered. Also, changes from 'Full' to 'Concise' should be recommended only in exceptional cases where the paper could be substantially improved by a major revision with shortening. Papers submitted as 'Full' or 'Concise' which are recommended by Reviewers for acceptance in the 'Poster' category, or for which Committee decides to offer 'Poster', may by negotiation be published at a length greater than two pages, if the authors so desire, upon accepting a 'Poster' offer.
Detailed descriptive statistics about review process outcomes for full and short papers submitted to ascilite Conferences in previous years may be obtained from the editorials appearing in each Proceedings, from 2004 to 2008 inclusive.
If you have academic or technical questions about the review process, please email Roger Atkinson, rjatkinson@bigpond.com