Data for Policy 2022 Ecosystems of innovation and virtual-physical interactions #dataforpolicy2022 | dataforpolicy.org | @dataforpolicy 5 December: Hong Kong     8/9 December: Seattle     13 December: Brussels Delegate Access    

Review and Assessment

A flow diagram of the the conference process from submission to post-acceptance for the different submission types is available here  

Required Reviewers: Standard Tracks

  • Extended abstracts and other submissions: These will receive two reviews from within the Regional Committee and the Area Committee.
  • Full papers: A Regional Committee member and an Area Committee member invite external peer reviewers. One review can be internal to the committees.

Required Reviewers: Special Tracks

  • Extended abstracts and other submissions: These will receive two reviews: one from within the Programme Committee, and one external to the PC.
  • Full papers: The Programme Committee invite external peer reviewers. One review can be internal to the committee.

EasyChair Guide

Reviews are conducted through the conference EasyChair system. A guide for using EasyChair as a reviewer is available here.

Conflicts of interest

If you are invited to review a submission, and you believe you have a conflict of interest, you must declare this on the form, if you provide a review. 

Assessment criteria 

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

  • 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

Additional Assessment Criteria for suitability of full papers for invitation to Data & Policy journal

Reviewers of full papers provide review aligned to that of the Data & Policy journal. Thus reviewers are asked to provide comments on:

  • 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 conference and journal

Scoring for Extended Abstracts, Panels and Other Submissions

In addition to written comments, the reviewer will score to indicate whether the abstract is  

  • suitable 
  • potentially suitable, or
  • not suitable for the conference

Scoring For Full Papers

In addition to written comments, the reviewer will score to indicate whether the full paper is:

  • accepted for the conference and suitable for invitation to submit to Data & Policy (with revision as indicated)
  • accepted for the conference, but is not yet ready for publication
  • potentially suitable, or
  • not suitable for the conference

Final Decisions

Following peer review, the final decision on inclusion in the conference and invitation to submit a revised paper will rest with the Regional Chairs and General Chairs, who have an overview of the Conference programme as a whole. This is to ensure a varied and balanced programme for the benefit of all conference attendees.

 

Chairs and Programme Committees for each track manage the peer review process. For standard tracks, this is with assistance from the area editors. See this diagram for more information about how this is organised for Standard Tracks, using Standard Track 1 as an example.

A guide to managing the review process on EasyChair is available here

Special Track Chairs organise equivalent review for their tracks.