Reviewers participate in the scientific selection process for the ACEDE Congress. Their role is to assess the quality, originality and suitability of the papers submitted, in order to determine their acceptance and the most appropriate presentation format (oral presentation, interactive panel or work in progress).
What being a reviewer entails:
- Reviewing the entire manuscript.
- Issuing an independent and well-founded assessment.
- Recommending a presentation format, if applicable.
- Proposing improvements to strengthen the work.
Evaluation of oral presentations
Main focus
- Assess the theoretical and empirical contribution, clarity of argument, and methodological soundness.
- Identify conceptual, empirical, and positioning strengths.
What to contribute
- Suggestions on how to refine the contribution and communicate it better.
- Specific comments on design, measures, interpretation of results, and theoretical fit.
- Relevant references or frameworks only if they provide clarity and direction.
What to avoid
- Repeating what is already in the paper.
- Excessively general comments.
- Technical derivations that do not have a clear purpose.
Objective
To reinforce the contribution and its positioning in the literature, helping to improve the manuscript for submission or review in journals.
Work in Progress
Main focus
- Provide strategic guidance on theory, design, and empirical analysis.
- Help the author avoid errors in approach or suboptimal decisions.
What to contribute
- Questions that force clarification of assumptions and decisions.
- Suggestions on data feasibility, operationalisation, causal logic and econometric identification strategy.
- Alternatives when more appropriate methodological or conceptual routes exist.
What to avoid
- Comparative judgements with mature works.
- Demands for final results when the project is in the exploratory phase.
- ‘Rewriting’ the project; the objective is to guide, not to replace the author's decisions.
Objective
To enable the author to make informed decisions that increase the quality, clarity and feasibility of the study.
Doctoral Workshop
Main focus
- Comprehensive academic guidance for researchers in training.
- Focus on doctoral development, conceptual clarity and thesis progression.
What to contribute
- Comments on the coherence between research question, theory, method and work plan.
- Recommendations for narrowing the scope, prioritising objectives and planning stages.
- Key references to strengthen the conceptual and methodological framework.
What to avoid
- Excessive technical sophistication without pedagogical context.
- Criticism that demotivates or shifts the focus away from learning.
- Recommendations that are disconnected from the capabilities and time constraints of a doctoral student.
Objective
To support the development of research talent, helping to build solid and sustainable projects.
