Depending on the format and type of research report the proposals will be reviewed by at least two referees.
In general, they apply the following criteria
- Overall quality and scientific originality
- Significance for theory, practice, and policy
- Theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, pragmatic grounding
- Clarity of definition of research questions and objectives
- Research method and design (context, participants, data sources, sampling, procedure, ethical issues)
- Quality, validity and appropriateness of analysis
- Presentation of results
- Interpretation of results (practical and theoretical relevance)
- Organisation, structure and language of submission
- Relevance to the EARLI domain of learning and instruction.
Now that the International Planning Committee decided on including theoretical papers, and some new sessions formats, these criteria were the backgorund for the new review schema. In the table below we present these various formats and types of contributions with the respective review criteria.
Empirical | Theoretical contribution | Panel discussion | Round table | ICT demonstration or Workshop | Symposium as a whole |
Overall quality and scientific originality | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem |
Significance for theory, practice and policy | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem |
Embeddedness in relevant literature | Embeddedness in relevant literature | ||||
Theoretical framework, conceptual rationale, pragmatic grounding | As column 1 | Clarity of positions taken by panellists | As column 1 | As column 1 | As column 1 |
Clarity of definition of research questions and objectives | As column 1 | Variety of positions taken by panellists | Clarity of definition of research questions and objectives | Clarity of definition of research questions and objectives | |
Research method and design (context, participants, data sources, sampling, procedure, ethical issues) | As column 1 | Validation in domain of application (as research method, data collecting, research procedure etc. | |||
Quality, validity and appropriateness of the analysis | Clarity of argument | Clarity of arguments for positions | Clarity of issue at stake to discuss (DOUBLE | ||
Presentation of results | Clarity of conclusions | Quality of workshop format (activity based) or demonstration activities (DOUBLE WEIGHT) | |||
Interpretation of results (practical and theoretical relevance) | Relevance of the conclusions | ||||
Organization, structure and language of the submission | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem | Organization and internal logic of the whole symposium |
Relevance to the EARLI domain of Learning and Instruction | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem | Idem |
10 criteria | 10 criteria | 8 criteria | 8 criteria | 8 criteria | 5 criteria |
