Guidance for Reviewers

Thanks for being a reviewer for the OERxDomains21 Conference.  We are using EasyChair to manage submissions and peer review.

As a reviewer you will be assigned proposals to review, taking into account any reviewing preferences you have expressed when you joined the Committee.

Session and submission formats

Reflective practice presentations Reflective practice presentations offer a contribution towards the practice of open education, e.g. case studies, descriptive accounts, etc., but with a reflective and critical component.

Time: 20 minutes (typically 15-minute presentation, 5 minutes Q+A)Abstract word limit: 500

Research presentations Research presentations offer a theoretical and/or empirical contribution towards open education; located clearly in the field through, for example, a literature review.

Time: 20 minutes (typically 15-minute presentation, 5 minutes Q+A)Abstract word limit: 500

Workshops Workshops may follow a variety of formats, but all are hands-on, engaged and interactive. Due to the high demand for these sessions, we have to limit the number of workshop proposals to those who clearly demonstrate how participants will engage.

In both cases, please specify the topic, format, chair of the session, and all participating as facilitators/panel members.

Time: 60 minutes Abstract word limit: 500

Alt-format [7 minutes maximum] Alternative short formats are very welcome, e.g. demos, Pecha Kucha, spoken word, TED-style talk, multimodal presentations, performance, improvisation, screening a digital story, web content, etc. This format asks you to be creative, to share an idea in a way that speaks to hearts and minds.

Time: 7 minutes Abstract word limit: 500

Open spaces Facilitate spaces for people to engage in emerging conversations. We invite experienced facilitators to create a space for participants to interact and engage with issues during the conference. Please provide as much information as possible regarding suggested topic/question, format, anticipated time requirements, anticipated number of participants, how participants will engage, etc.

Time: 30 minutesAbstract word limit: 500

Note for proposals with a commercial focus

We do not accept proposals with a primary focus on demonstrating services or products offered by a commercial provider and which do not explicitly address the conference theme(s) in a learning context.

Review criteria

Proposals will be reviewed according to the following criteria:

  • Relevance to one or more of the conference key themes
  • Usefulness to conference participants globally, and from across all sectors of education
  • Contribution to the provision of reliable evidence for scholarship and research into Open Education
  • Demonstrated evidence of reflection, evaluation, and criticality
  • Engagement of participants
  • Creativity and innovation
  • Openness
  • Clarity, coherence and conformance to guidelines.

Education is considered broadly, incl. formal and informal learning settings in schools, colleges, universities, the workplace, homes and communities, at any stage in learners’ lives.

How to write feedback for authors

The feedback you provide is sent to authors, so keep this in mind when writing your comments.

Be concise, sometimes a sentence or two is enough and we ask that feedback is as clear and specific as possible, referring directly to sentences or sections of the proposal that should be revised.

Here are tips from other reviewers:

  • Avoid praising or criticising the author(s), make sure all comments refer to the proposal. Rather than general comments, consider giving a few specific  points of positive feedback, followed by suggestions for change, which (as suggested below) should be focussed on what the author could do to improve the proposal.
  • Try to write feedback that you’d be happy to receive and that the authors can clearly action. Be positive in your language and constructive in your suggestions. rather than simply stating any problems that you identify or anticipate for the session, you can suggest changes/additions to the proposal that would improve it (particularly in line with the review criteria). For example: If you think a workshop proposal sounds more like a one-way presentation, you might say “This session  would benefit from more interaction; please include details of the ways participants will be invited to engage  during the session”.
  • Remember that just because someone has done something in a different way than you would have done it, does not make them wrong. Please be respectful and be explicit about the nature of the advice you are giving. For example, are you offering suggestions for consideration (“the proposal could be enhanced by the inclusion of…”), or insisting on a problem being fixed (“this section is unclear and should be rewritten”)?
  • Keep in mind that our authors come from different sectors and backgrounds and English may not be their first language.

Review outcomes

Once you have reviewed the proposals against the criteria, please choose one of the following outcomes:

Decision Description
Accept Accept the proposal with no changes (i.e. a strong proposal, everything is as it should be).
Accept with minor revisions Accept the proposal with only minor changes (i.e. a strong proposal, but usually lacking in one aspect, for example too little reflection or information, lack of criticality, lack of participant engagement, etc.). Your feedback will be directly sent to the authors, so be as clear and detailed as you can about what changes they should make.
Recommend re-submission The proposal cannot be accepted, but you feel that it meets the criteria to a sufficient degree that it could be accepted if it was revised significantly. Your feedback will be directly sent to the authors, so be as clear and detailed as you can be about what changes they should make.
Reject Reject the proposal if it is out of scope, of poor quality, or otherwise fails to meet the review criteria, and you feel it cannot be improved sufficiently by making revisions.

Review timetable 2021

As a reviewer you will receive requests to review via email (to the same address with which you signed up to the Conference Committee).

  • 11 February – submissions close
  • 16 February – reviewing starts
  • 5 March – deadline for reviews and round 1 decisions
  • 8 March – round 1 decisions to authors
  • 8-22 March – round 2
  • 22 March – deadline for final decisions to authors