The scientific quality of the annual ACEDE Conference largely depends on how timely and constructive the evaluators’ comments on submitted papers are. For this reason, these guidelines aim to facilitate this role and make the evaluation process as consistent as possible.
|
STEPS |
DESCRIPTION |
|
1 |
Reviewers will receive an email notifying them of the assignment of papers to review. The email will indicate the title of the paper assigned for review, as well as the deadline for completing the review, which will be three weeks, and always before March 15, 2026. |
| 2 |
If the reviewer does not accept the review of the assigned paper, they must decline it through Conftool within 3 days so that it can be reassigned to another reviewer who will have sufficient time to complete it (see the user area in the Conftool platform). In addition to verifying that the topic of the paper matches their expertise, it is essential to ensure that the review can be completed within the specified timeframe in order to guarantee that the event can be held on the scheduled date in June. Therefore, we kindly ask reviewers to be rigorous in meeting the deadlines. If the reviewer does not decline the assignment within the 3 day period, the review task will be considered accepted, and the reviewer commits to submitting the evaluation within the agreed timeframe (three weeks, with the final deadline of March 15, 2026). |
| 3 |
The reviewers’ contribution is to help improve the research of the participants in the ACEDE Conference, whom they are representing through their work. |
The evaluation must follow the review form provided on the Conftool platform. This document is structured into the following sections:
a) General aspects: Comment on the theoretical development and technical soundness of the methodology, considering the overall added value of the contribution. It is also desirable to assess whether the work offers any practical implications.
b) Specific aspects:
i. Introduction: Is there a clearly stated and well-motivated research question? Is it interesting? After reading the introduction, does the evaluator feel motivated to continue reading?
ii. Theory: Does the paper include a well-developed theoretical framework? Are central concepts clearly defined? Is there a reasonable logic behind the hypotheses? Does the literature review include the appropriate references, or are key works missing? Do hypotheses or propositions flow logically from the theory?
iii. Methodology (for papers with empirical content): Are the sample and variables appropriate for testing the hypotheses? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical techniques? Is the study internally and externally validated? Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the research questions and applied correctly?
iv. Discussion (for papers with empirical content): Are the results understandable as presented? Do they answer the stated research question? Are alternative explanations possible? If so, are they addressed in the paper? Are the results discussed in relation to existing research?
v. Contribution: Does the paper offer added value compared to existing research? Does it stimulate debate and reflection? Do the authors discuss the implications of their work for the academic or professional community?
Evaluators should avoid including in the review any information that might reveal their identity. This protects the integrity of the double-blind review process.