Skip to main content
Reviewing
The 2024 edition will be the first iPRES conference with an open peer review process, where the reviewers know who the authors are (as in previous editions) and the authors know who contributed the review (if accepted). If your proposal is not accepted, we will maintain confidentiality.
At the conference, the conversation continues as the authors present their work and participants can annotate further. Thus, the community can access the great value hidden in the reviews and share the learning curve. Also, the program committee can issue a best reviewer award, to emphasize the valuable review work.
What do we expect from reviewers?
Provide a prompt, thorough, and impartial review
Give constructive feedback with reasonable suggestions and professional tone
Avoid suggesting the addition of irrelevant or unnecessary references
Alert the conference chairs to any suspected ethical issues
Maintain confidentiality by safeguarding the unique contributions of the submitter’s work
What are reviewers looking for in a contribution?
When reviewing research & practice papers, reviewers look for the following:
Scope: Is the paper appropriate for the scope of iPRES?
Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?
Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?
Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?
Validity: Is the study well designed and executed? Does the evidence supplied in the paper support the claims?
Compliance: Are all ethical and publication requirements met?
Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?
For other contribution types, reviewers look for the following:
Scope: Is the contribution appropriate for the scope of iPRES?
Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?
Community building: Does this contribution reinforce professional development & collaboration?
Compliance: Are all ethical and publication requirements met?
Conference experience: Does the intended audience, multimedia and interactivity match the contents of the contribution?
Community Publishing
All initial submissions are handled in full confidentiality, using CERN’s Indico toolkit.
If your proposal is accepted, the final version with corrections and supplementary material will be published on Pubpub.org, where an open commenting process during the conference will supplement the initial reviews.
Pubpub is a community publishing platform provided by Knowledge Futures, a USA-based 501c3 nonprofit building open source technology and collaborating with communities to design, build, and implement the public digital infrastructure needed for effective, equitable, and sustainable knowledge futures.
Key features:
Collaborate & edit with co-authors in real time
Import your work from any source
Embed rich multimedia in your publication
Host public and private discussions with your readers and community
Manage submissions and peer review directly
Export your work to PDF, Word, Markdown, LaTeX, JATS XML, and more
Generate CrossRef DOIs for your documents
Add typed relationships — reviews, commentary, supplement, etc. — to your content and deposit them to Crossref
Still looking for answers?
Every week, we have online drop-in sessions where you can ask your question.
Criteria like Scope or Advancement are assessed along a 7 grade scale, marked from -3 (strong disagreement) to +3 (strong agreement).
Criteria like Compliance are a flag to request the conference chairs to look into this. Individual reviewers are not expected to dig into institutional policies or funder’s requirements that might be confusing. The baseline is the iPRES Code of Conduct, notwithstanding institutional, national or other relevant policies as reported by the authors.
The review form always includes one or more textual areas, allowing the reviewer to consider the submission fully.
The individual reviewers make a proposal to accept (with corrections) or to reject ; the subcommittee co-chairs are the judges.
