The scientific quality of the annual ACEDE Conference depends, to a large extent, on how appropriate and constructive reviewers’ comments on submitted work are. For this reason, this guide aims to make this process easier and as homogenous as possible.
The person responsible for a track in the XXX ACEDE Conference will contact the reviewer, keeping in mind the preferences he/she has previously indicated.
This email will include the title and Abstract of the paper assigned to the reviewer, as well as the deadline for submitting the evaluation.
Last day for reviewers to send in their evaluations: 6 March, 2020
The reviewer should answer the email indicating whether or not he/she agrees to review the paper.
Besides checking that the topic of the paper is in line with his/her area of knowledge, it is important to make sure that the revision can be carried out by the stipulated date in order to guarantee that the event runs as programmed in June. For this reason, we ask all reviewers to comply with the deadline.
We ask reviewers to indicate within 3 days whether they will be able to carry out the revision of the paper assigned to them, to give us time to send it to another reviewer if necessary.
If the reviewer accepts the paper for evaluation, the person in charge of the track will send them the entire paper and the document which should be used to carry out the evaluation.
The reviewer agrees to submit the revision by the deadline (6 March, 2020).
Reviewers contribute to the improvement of research carried out by the participants of the ACEDE Conference, which they are representing with their work.
It is important to identify the strengths of the papers so their authors can reinforce those points. At the same time, a paper’s weakness or problems should be addressed from a constructive point of view which will allow the authors to make improvements.
To carry out the evaluation, the document for this purpose provided by the person in charge of the track for the XXX ACEDE Conference should be used. This document contains the following sections:
a) General aspects: comment on the theoretical development of the work and the technical correctness of the methodology, generally considering the value the paper adds to the field. It is also a good idea to consider the extent to which the work has practical value.
b) Specific aspects:
i. Introduction: Is there a clear and solidly motivated research question? Is it interesting? After reading the introduction, do you want to read more?
ii. Theory: Does the work have a well-articulated and developed theoretical basis? Are the principal concepts of the work clearly defined? Is there reasonable logic behind the hypotheses? Does the work include an adequate bibliography, or are there key references missing in the review? Do the proposals or hypotheses flow logically from the theory?
iii. Methodology (for works with an empirical section): Are the sample and the variables adequate to test the hypotheses? Is the data collection method consistent with the analytical techniques used? Is the study both internally and externally valid? Are the analytical techniques appropriate for the research questions, and are they appropriately applied?
iv. Discussion (for works with an empirical section): Is the development of the results understandable? Do the results give an answer to the research question? Are there alternative explanations for the results? If there are, are they controlled in the work? Are the results presented in relation to the available research?
v. Contribution: Does the work add value to current research in the field? Does the work stimulate thought and debate? Do the authors discuss the implications of their work for the scientific or professional communities?
Try not to give any information in the evaluation which could reveal the identity of the reviewer. This will help to protect the double-blind reviewing process.
a. Rate their familiarity with the subject of the paper under review.
b. Indicate whether they consider the paper to be a good candidate for Best Conference Paper and the Best Paper of its Track.