Information for Reviewers

Thank you for agreeing to review for Data for Policy 2024.

 

Submission types for review

Submissions are invited for consideration at Data for Policy 2024 in the following categories:

  • Individual Abstract Submissions (policy and practitioner submissions on EasyChair
  • Individual Full Paper Submissions (research contributions that go into the Data & Policy ScholarOne system)
  • Panel Session Proposals (overview and 3-5 constituent abstracts on EasyChair, with constituent full papers on ScholarOne).

We will use two different platforms for review – EasyChair (individual and panel abstracts) and ScholarOne (full papers, including those that are part of panels). The details for each submission type are below.

 

Review & Assessment

Process for extended abstracts and panel proposals: These will receive two reviews via EasyChair, arranged by the local organising committee (standard tracks) or special track chairs (special tracks).

Process for full papers, including those that are part of a panel proposal: These will receive two reviews, via ScholarOne system, arranged by the relevant Area Committees (standard tracks) or special track chairs (special tracks).

Assessment criteria: All submissions are assessed for their suitability for inclusion in the conference programme, with reviewers asked to comment on the following:

For extended abstracts and panel proposals:

  • Potential contribution to the debates in the field
  • Potential for stimulating debate in the Conference
  • Freshness of the content, novelty and originality
  • Formulation of the research/policy question
  • Data and methodology
  • Quality of writing and presentation

For full papers:

Criteria as detailed above for abstracts and panel proposals AND

  • the paper’s significance, noting what is original / interesting
  • the overall quality
  • the technical correctness and scientific soundness
  • the clarity and length
  • the suitability for the journal

These details are also available on the journal website Instructions for Peer Reviewers webpage

Deadlines

Deadline for reviews for abstracts and panel proposals: 15 January 2024

Deadline for full papers, including those that are part of a panel proposal: 22 January 2024

 

 

Decisions

Individual abstracts on EasyChair: these will be scored from 1 (high) to 5 (low), as follows:

  1. Strong accept for conference;
  2. Accept for conference;
  3. Borderline accept;
  4. Weak reject for conference;
  5. Reject for conference

Full papers on ScholarOne will receive decisions as follows:

  • Accept for journal and conference
  • Minor revisions for journal: accept for conference dependent on revised paper being submitted to timetable
  • Major revisions for journal: accept for conference dependent on revised paper being submitted to timetable
  • Reject
  • Desk reject (papers that are out of scope or otherwise unsuitable for review)

Please note that the underlying principle of our integrated review process is that an accept in the journal is effectively an accept in the conference, and likewise for reject decisions, i.e. papers cannot be accepted or rejected for one and not the other.

Panel proposal decision mechanism will depend on the composition of the panel (combination of abstracts and full papers) and will be decided on a case by case basis with the appropriate committee members.

Once all submissions have been scored, the Special Track chairs and Area Committees will rank submissions for recommendation to the conference chairs.

For all submissions, the final decision on inclusion in the conference and journal rests with the conference chairs, who have an overview of both the conference and journal.

 

Guides and Policy

For Reviewers: Guidance for using EasyChair to submit reviews 2024 is available here.

For Committee Members and Track Chairs: Guidance for managing peer review in Easy Chair 2024 is available here.

Conflicts of Interest: Data for Policy seeks to minimise conflicts of interest in reviewing. Please ensure you have read our COI policy and declared any perceived conflicts. We retain the right to remove reviewers from review tasks.