Policies and Procedures

SCCITL Conference Proposal Review Process


All SCCITL conference proposal submissions will undergo a blind peer-review process.

1. Conference proposals will be sent to three reviewers after the proposal submission deadline.

2. Each reviewer will be asked to review approximately five proposals. The exact number depends upon the number of submissions and the number of volunteer reviewers.

3. Conference proposals will be evaluated on the following criteria:

  • Relevance to overall conference theme
  • Clearly defined session learning outcomes
  • Significance of the topic
  • Informed by relevant theory or practice
  • Interest to conference attendees
  • Well written
  • Fit for selected format (panel, roundtable, presentation, workshop)
  • Appropriate key references

4. Reviewers will be asked to provide narrative feedback on the strengths, areas of improvement and any overall comments for each proposal. Reviewer comments will be anonymously provided to the presenters. Reviewers may also provide comments to the Call for Proposals committee that will not be seen by presenters.

5. Reviewers will recommend one of the following for each proposal:

  • Accept with no (or minor) revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Do not accept

6. If reviews of a proposal are substantially different, the Call for Proposals Committee may ask additional reviewers to evaluate the proposal.

7. Presenters will be contacted with a decision of accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions or not accepted.

8. Presenters will be asked, via a form, to:

  • Confirm their acceptance
  • Make any necessary revisions to their proposal
  • Include a short bio and picture
  • Update contact information, if necessary
  • Verify additional presenters contact information, if necessary