Review process

The proposals will be reviewed by at least two referees appointed by the Scientific Program Committee according to the following criteria. These criteria are applicable for all formats: the symposium presentations, the thematic papers and the posters as well. Different sets of criteria are applied to theoretical and empirical research and the summary of symposia (poster can be based on only empirical research).
 
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
 
The reviewers will rate the proposals from 0 to 5 in each category, and they can add short comments to their scores. If there is more than a 10 point difference between the ratings, a third reviewer will be asked by the Scientific Program Committee to evaluate the proposal.
 
Based on the evaluation of the referees, the Scientific Program Committee defines the minimal acceptance scores for the theoretical and the empirical proposals, and makes the final decision. 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 the re-direction of a paper in a symposium to a paper in a thematic session, or of a paper to a poster session. If the proposal is re-assigned, the author may decide against presenting their work. In this case, the conference organizers should be notified ( kgykonf@uni-mate.hu).
 

 

Kaposvár

News

Photos

The photos taken at the conference can be found at this link.

 

2021-09-16 04:04:07

Proposal submission deadline extended

The deadline for proposal submission for the Training and Practice International Conference on Educational Science 2021 has been extended till Wednesday, 2 June, 24:00 CET.

2021-05-21 14:41:31

Online Registration

Online Registration and Abstract submission open on 20 April 2021

2021-03-12 00:00:01

„The website was developed based on the Conference on Educational Assessment”