EDC

Review Process

Each proposal will be reviewed by three members of a blind review committee.  The peer review process will include feedback and, possibly, specific suggestions for each submission. Submitters will be notified by November 23, 2015 of the selection of sessions. You may be asked to take such feedback into account, and to revise and resubmit your proposal before a final decision is made, by December 7, 2015. If you are not available in November to participate in this integral part of the selection process, please let us know in advance.

Review Criteria

Reviewers will rate each proposal in five categories (each worth five points):

1. Relevance. Does the proposal address the conference theme? Is the proposal relevant for the audience?
2. Goals. Are the presentation's goals clear and valuable?
3. Engagement. Does the proposal appear to be interactive and engaging?
4. Meaningful content. Does the proposal provide meaningful information/research and make a contribution to our understanding of teaching/learning or leadership?
5. Relevant literature. Is the proposal supported with relevant literature?

We will select the proposals that have the highest point values overall:

• Proposals scoring between 21 and 25 points are likely to be accepted.
• Proposals scoring between 16 and 20 points may require minor revisions in order to be accepted.
• Proposals scoring between 10 and 15 points may require major revisions in order to be accepted.
• Proposals scoring fewer than 9 points are unlikely to be accepted to the conference.

We encourage reviewers to provide comments intended to help proponents improve their submissions. Please note that any text included in the comments section will be shared with proponents. Please use the following guidelines when writing suggestions and comments:

• Be concrete and specific.  Focus on particular things the presenter could work on, and give examples whenever possible.
• Comment on the proposal, not the person who wrote it.
• Include suggestions for resources or references that may be of use to the proponents.
• Be constructive. Let presenters know which aspects of their proposals are effective and/or ineffective in a supportive manner.

The peer review process for this conference is anonymous: proposals are forwarded to reviewers without identifying information in as much as that is possible.

If you have any questions about the conference, please contact the Conference Planning Committee at edc2016@uwindsor.ca