Abstract Reviewer Guidelines

Guidelines for Abstract Reviewers

Reviewers will be volunteer members of the faculty. Review panels will be composed of faculty members from each division, ideally from different departments making up that division. Abstracts will be reviewed

by the relevant divisional review panel.

  • Each panel will be composed of at least three reviewers.
  • Each abstract will be reviewed using the guidelines detailed below.
  • Each reviewer will read and rate all the abstracts assigned to the divisional panel.
  • Divisional panels will then submit their aggregated review recommendations to the Symposium Committee by Friday, March 28 by 4pm. Divisional panels should come to a group decision. However, the mechanism by which that is done can be determined by said group (e.g., email, Scholar, phone, meeting). Please submit the final group recommendation/ranking to the Symposium Committee at symposium2014@simpson.edu.

 

The Symposium Committee trusts the expertise and ability of the faculty reviewing abstracts to evaluate and recommend to the Committee creative work of high quality.

Each member of the divisional panel should use the following rating system for each abstract:

             (1) Exceptional/Outstanding work – strongest recommendation for acceptance

             (2) Above Average Work – recommend acceptance

             (3) Abstract describes solid work – to be included as space allows

             (4) Rejection

 

It is expected that divisional panels will come to a consensus regarding the abstracts submitted in their area. Please rate every abstract you review accordingly (see guidelines below). There is no expected number of acceptances or rejections; abstracts should be evaluated based on the criteria given below. The Symposium Committee also asks for a separate list of rank order for the abstracts in each category (presentation, poster, performance/exhibit) that receive a rating of 1, 2, or 3. If you have any questions about the student work, please contact the faculty sponsor listed on the form. Please submit the final group recommendation/ranking to the Symposium Committee at symposium2014@simpson.edu by Friday, March 28 by 4pm.

Rating Guidelines

The main factors considered by the Symposium Committee in qualifying abstracts for acceptance are:

  • The quality of the research, scholarship, or creative work
  • The content of the abstract
  • Adherence to submission criteria

 

Below we provide general guidelines to help the reviewers in the reviewing process. Due to the substantial differences between the nature of creative work and research and scholarship work, we provide two

separate sets of guidelines for reviewing research and scholarship submissions, and for reviewing abstracts describing creative work. The guidelines are not binding, ultimately we have trust in the judgment of the reviewers as experts in the corresponding field.

A. Guidelines for reviewing abstracts that describe research and scholarship work.

We suggest that the evaluation of each abstract be based on the answers to the following questions. Note that not all questions listed in the guidelines will apply equally well to each abstract.

  1. Does the abstract clearly state the aim of the project (i.e., a research question, theoretical issue, or problem)?
  2. Is the significance of the work clearly stated?
  3. If relevant, are the methods, data collection, and analysis procedures well-designed and appropriate to the question addressed?
  4. For a presentation: Is the work completed, or does it show very strong promise of being completed in time for the conference? Submissions do not require completed work, but must include a plan for the project.
  5. Are the conclusions justified in relation to the data and/or analyses/description?
  6. Is the abstract written clearly and organized well?
  7. Is the topic of scientific, methodological, or theoretical importance?

 

Abstracts may be rejected by the reviewers for the following reasons:

  1. The abstract does not clearly indicate the reason for conducting the project. There is no rationale for the importance of the project.
  2. There is no or insufficient summary regarding the data, results, methodological plan, and/or theory. It is okay if data has not been collected as long as a reasonable plan for collection and analysis are included in the abstract.
  3. Duplicate Abstract- The abstract contents substantively overlap with the contents of another submitted abstract by the same author or co-author.
  4. Poorly written – Improper use of the English language renders the abstract incomprehensible.

 

B. Guidelines for reviewing abstracts describing creative work

We suggest that the evaluation of each abstract be based on the answers to the following questions (Note that not all questions listed in the guidelines will apply equally well to each abstract):

  1. Does the described work have significant expressive power?
  2. Does the described work address/express issues of personal integrity, moral responsibility, social justice and/or global citizenship?
  3. Is the described work thought provoking?