Criteria for Proposals

Reviewers will evaluate proposals for its relevance of the topic to the overall conference. The selection process involves a review of every proposal submitted prior to the deadline. The criteria described below are used in the reviews.

Review criteria Research proposals

• Originality: is the contribution original and does it contain new insights for the audience?
• Relevance: is the contribution relevant for the conference and track theme; and does it refer to relevant literature?
• Empirical basis: is the contribution based on empirical data; and is a clear description of methodology used included?
• Results: are the research results correctly analyzed and interpreted?
• Interactivity: does the contribution contain information on implications / lessons for others; and an idea on how to discuss this with the audience?
• Clarity: is the proposal clear and concise?

Review criteria Practice proposals

• Originality: is the contribution original and does it contain new information that the audience could use in their own practice?
• Relevance: is the contribution relevant for the conference and track theme?
• Experience: is the contribution based on experience in an educational setting; and does it contain an evaluation of this experience; has the contribution the potential to inspire others to create new honors educational programs or innovate existing educational programs?
• Interactivity: does the contribution include a plan to ensure interaction with the audience?
• Clarity: is the proposal clear and concise?

 

Instructions for reviewers, can be found here > reviewer_instructions.pdf