Review process
The proposals will be reviewed by two independent reviewers appointed by the Scientific Program Committee according to the following criteria. The criteria enlisted are applicable for all formats: the symposium presentations, the thematic papers and the posters, however, different sets of criteria are applied to theoretical and empirical research (posters can only be based on empirical research). The reviewers evaluate the organization and inner logic of the symposium separately.
| Category | Interpretation | Theoretical paper | Empirical paper | Symposium-summary | Poster |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aims | Do the papers in the symposium support the same objective? | X | |||
| Coherence | How are the papers in a symposium connected to each other? Together do they give a comprehensive view of the issue at hand? | X | |||
| Theoretical framework or conceptual rationale | Is the theoretical framework explicit and valid in the abstract? Are concepts and terminology valid and appropriate? | X | X | X | |
| Discussion of theory | Is the abstract an indication of a thorough discussion? | X | |||
| Aims, research questions or hypotheses | Does the abstract include clear and explicit aims, research questions or hypotheses? | X | X | ||
| Aspects of analysis and their relevance | Are the approaches applied in the analysis valid? Does their application lead to new knowledge? | X | |||
| Originality | Does the abstract indicate the author’s contribution to research? Does the study bring new results and findings? | X | |||
| Research methodology | Are the sample and instruments of the study clear? Are the procedures of data collection and analysis appropriate? Are the methods appropriate to answer the research questions? | X | X | ||
| Presentation and interpretation of results | Does the abstract present information resulting from the analyses performed? Does the abstract clarify the meaning the author attributes to this information? Is this interpretation valid in the paradigm of the abstract? | X | X | ||
| Overall quality, structure and style | Does the abstract fulfil academic expectations of the genre? Does the abstract reveal a well-designed and executed study? Does the abstract use appropriate academic language? Is it easy to understand? Is it carefully composed? | X | X | X | X |
| Relevance for theory and practice | Does the abstract clearly indicate a wider importance or the consequences of the study, beyond the constraints of the concrete situation or participants examined? If the author explicitly states this relevance, is their claim valid? | X | X | X | X |
In each category the reviewers rate the proposals from 0 to 5.They can add short comments to their scores and by all means will justify the low scores. If there is more than a 10-point difference between the ratings, a third reviewer will evaluate the proposal.
Considering the evaluation of the reviewers the Scientific Program Committee makes the final decision based on the minimal acceptance scores for the theoretical and the empirical proposals. The decision may be: (1) accepted; (2) rejected; or (3) accepted but re-assigned to a different conference format.
If a proposal is rejected, it is not possible to change and re-submit it. Assignment to a different conference format means that a paper submitted to a symposium may be presented in a thematic session, or a paper submitted to a thematic session may be presented in a poster session. If the proposal is re-assigned, the author may decline to present their work in the suggested format ( pek@edu.u-szeged.hu).
The acceptance of a proposal does not automatically guarantee the inclusion of its abstract in the conference book of abstracts. Abstracts are only published in the conference book of abstracts if the presenting author pays the conference fees by the given deadline. A paper/poster with multiple authors will be included if at least one author has paid the conference fee.
Szeged
News
Short programme
The short programme for the CEA 2024 is now available. We welcome everyone to the conference.
2024-03-26 10:00:00
Notification of acceptance
Ther review process has finished. After logging in to the website authors will have access to the results from 15th February.
2024-02-15 00:00:01
Deadline extended
The deadline for proposal submission has been extended till Friday, 26 January, 24:00 CET.
2024-01-23 08:00:00
