Guidelines for the participation as a Reviewer
The scientific quality of the annual ACEDE Conference depends, at a great extent, the appropriateness and constructiveness of the comments provided by the reviewers of the papers.
To ensure a most homogeneous and efficient task, we have provided the following guidelines for the reviewer.
Setting the tone of the review
We ask reviewers to be constructive. One of the most important services carried out by the reviewers is to help improve the research done by the researchers who have sent their work to the Conference. Remember that the reviewers are representing ACEDE.
It is important to identify the strengths of the work to help the authors improve to strengthen these points.
If the concerns that have been identified do not have a solution, constructive ideas should be offered to the authors to improve their research.
The reviewer should elaborate a brief report (maximum 5000 characters) in which the main strengths and weaknesses of the work are identified, as well as offering specific guidelines about how the authors can address the concerns that have been pointed out.
There should be an open attitude towards works that contain diagrams or different theoretical perspectives. In order to judge the work, it is necessary to take into account whether -and to what extent- ideas and discussion are stimulated. Many of the researchers that regularly assist ACEDE’s Conference come from diverse academic disciplines and research traditions with relatively diverse methodological and theoretical approaches.
Review Deadlines and format of the report
It is important that the reviewers send their reviews within the deadlines set by the Conference Scientific Committee TO ENSURE THE EVEN SCHEDULE PROGRAMMED FOR JUNE. THERE IS NO MARGIN FOR MANEUVER IN THIS SCHEDULE. Please, be rigorous when complying with the deadlines.
It is advisable to carry out a structured review, separating and numbering the comments if it is possible. If it is adequate, you should refer to the page numbers, figures or tables in your review.
Efforts will be made to ensure that the identity of the reviewer is not disclosed in the report. It protects the integrity of the anonymous double refereeing process.
Generally, a good review should take-up one page with single spacing.
Aspects to be considered
General aspects. In addition to overviewing the theory development of the work and the correct methodology, one should consider as a whole, the added value of the contribution that the work offers. Also, it would be appropriate to consider to what extent the work has any practical value.
Specific aspects. Can be useful when structuring your report.
Is there a clear research issue and is it solidly motivated? Is it interesting?
Does the work contain an articulated theoretical approach and is well developed?
Are the central concepts of the work clearly defined?
Is there a reasonable logic behind the hypothesis?
Does the work have the adequate bibliography or are there crucial references missing in the manuscript?
Do the propositions or hypothesis flow following the theory?
Methodology (for papers with an empirical contribution)
Are the samples and the variables adequate for the hypothesis testing?
Is the method of data obtention consistent with the analytical techniques used?
Is the study validated internally and externally?
Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the research matter and have they been applied appropriately?
Discussion (for papers with an empirical contribution)
As the current state of the paper, Are the results understandable?
Are there any alternative explanations to the results? If so, Are they explained in the paper?
Does the work offer a value added contribution in respect to existing literature?
Does the work stimulate debate and thought?
Do the authors discuss the implications of their work for the scientific or professional community?