Information for Reviewers
The Review Process
HERDSA conferences use a double blind review process that meets requirements for peer review of research publications. Reviewers of full refereed papers will receive a paper devoid of the authors’ names and institutions in order to ensure objectivity and anonymity. Abstracts for showcase presentations and posters will not be blind reviewed and will be evaluated by the Conference Organising Committee.
Reviewers are appointed on the basis of their expertise and experience in areas relevant to the conference.
All reviews will be completed by 25 March 2012.
Rating the Papers
Criteria |
Full Refereed Papers |
Showcase Presentations |
Posters |
1. Orginality Rate 1 - 5 where 5 is the highest and 1 does not meet criteria
|
5 - The paper is original, and clearly identifies broad and insightful implications for theory practice and/or policy that are consistent with study limitationsand the inferences and conclusions it draws. |
Originality and implications for practice, theory and/or policy |
Originality and implications for practice, theory and/or policy
|
4 - The paper provides clear implications for practice, policy and/or further research. |
|||
3 - The paper draws basic implictions for other practitioners. |
|||
2 - The paper does not extend beyond the immediate context. |
|||
1 - The paper does not meet the criteria. |
|||
2. Quality Rate 1 - 5 where 5 is the highest and 1 does not meet criteria |
5 - Clearly situated in current literature and/or policy with well articulated conceptual or theoretical framework and related research questions that address a novel issue(s). Adopts an appropriate research methodology for the purpose of the paper with insightful critical analysis and interpretation. |
Academic merit |
Academic merit |
4 - Situated in the literature and/or policy linked to clearly elaborated research question. Adopts an appropriate research methodology for the purpose of the paper with evidence of critical analysis and interpretation. |
|||
3 - Situated in the university context with limited but relevant connection to teaching and learning literature and/or policy, demonstrating some linkage to research question. Appropriate methodology with elementary analysis. |
|||
2 - Knowledge of literature and /or policy context is not demonstrated or integrated into the paper. Methodology lacks academic rigour, or paper lacks appropriate analysis and insight. |
|||
1 - The paper does not meet the criteria. |
|||
3. Relevance Rate 1 - 5 where 5 is the highest and 1 does not meet criteria
|
5 - Clear or strong contemporary relevance to one or more of the conference themes. Relevant to several audience groups. |
Relevance for conference, i.e. relevance to conference themes and to the intended audience |
Relevance for conference, i.e. relevance to conference themes and to the intended audience
|
4 - Relevant to one or more conference themes and relevant to at least one audience group. |
|||
3 - Relevant to at least one conference theme and relevant to at least some audience members. |
|||
2 - Lacks sufficient relevance to any of the conference themes, or to any of the audience groups. |
|||
1 - The paper does not meet the criteria. |
|||
4. Presentation Rate 1 - 5 where 5 is the highest and 1 does not meet criteria |
5 - All aspects of the written work conform to a high academic standard, i.e., the paper is highly readable and logical. Guidelines for formatting and referencing are adhered to. |
Standard of writing/presentation |
Standard of writing/presentation |
4 - Most aspects of the written work conform to a high academic standard, i.e., overall, the paper is logical and easy to read. |
|||
3 - Most aspects of the written work conform to an acceptable academic standard. While the paper may be difficult to read at times, overall it retains logic. |
|||
2 - This paper is difficult to read and/or the argument or logic is difficult to follow at times. |
|||
1 - The paper does not meet the criteria. |
Overall Recommendation for Full Refereed Papers
Recommendation |
Key |
Accepted as is |
Do not worry about the odd minor spelling, grammatical or formatting errors. All accepted authors will be required to ensure that their final submitted paper adheres to all these requirements in order to be published. |
Accepted with minor revisions |
The paper needs minor re-working and/or typographical and formatting corrections. |
Accepted subject to revision |
The paper requires some structural revision to reach a required standard for publication. |
Accepted as a non-refereed showcase presentation |
The audience would benefit from the presentation but it does not warrant publication as a refereed article (with or without minor revisions). |
Rejected |
The paper does match the required standard for a HERDSA presentation. |