Advice for Reviewers print version

The Role of Reviewers
Reviewers provide an independent assessment of the quality of each paper 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 and constructive 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 appropriate.

Ascilite2010 requires two double blind reviews for each full and concise paper, although in the event of non-arrival of a review, the Committee may elect to seek an additional review. 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 through acknowledgement in the online and USB drive versions of the Conference Proceedings. Each ascilite Conference relies to a large extent upon Reviewers commissioned from previous Conferences and Reviewers sought through sister organisational networks such as the Association of Learning Technology (ALT) in the United Kingdom. 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 Monday 12 July, with a due date Monday 2 August 2010. 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,

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 be 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.

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;?and
• 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 four criteria listed above, weighted as shown. For each criterion you will be asked to select a rating from the seven point scale:

Rating the papers
The following sections provide a guide to assigning a rating for three of the seven selection criteria.