Guidance for Contributors
Series-wide guidance for everyone who shapes the scholarly programme. Each edition page sets out its own deadlines, themes and submission portal.
Reviewer Guidelines
The standing of the series rests on the quality of its reviews. A good review helps the committee reach a sound decision and helps the authors produce a better paper, whatever the outcome. The organisers are grateful for the time and expertise every reviewer contributes.
Accepting an Assignment
Before accepting a paper, ask three questions.
Is It Within My Expertise?
Accept papers you can judge with confidence. If only part of a paper is within your field, say so in your report so the committee can weigh your comments accordingly.
Do I Have a Conflict?
Decline papers by recent collaborators, by colleagues in your own department, or on which you have previously advised, and any paper where you could not be impartial. If you recognise the authors despite anonymisation, tell the organisers.
Can I Meet the Deadline?
Accept only if you can complete the review on time. If circumstances change, tell the organisers early so the paper can be reassigned without delaying the authors.
What to Assess
Each paper is judged on the following criteria. The guiding questions indicate what a strong paper demonstrates.
| Criterion | Guiding questions |
|---|---|
| Originality and contribution | Does the paper state a clear contribution? Does it advance knowledge, method or practice beyond what is already published? |
| Relevance | Does the work fit the themes of the edition and the stream to which it was submitted? |
| Methodological rigour | Are the methods appropriate to the question, described transparently and applied correctly? Are sampling, data and analysis adequate to support the claims? |
| Evidence and interpretation | Do the conclusions follow from the results? Are limitations acknowledged and alternative explanations considered? |
| Clarity and structure | Is the paper well organised and clearly written? Are figures and tables legible and necessary? |
| Scholarship | Is the literature current and relevant? Are sources cited accurately and appropriately? |
| Fit with the proceedings | Does the paper meet the publisher’s eligibility requirements, and does it avoid the categories listed as outside the scope of the proceedings? |
| Ethics | Where people or communities are involved, is ethical approval reported? Is any use of generative AI disclosed? |
Writing the Report
A useful report is specific, evidenced and written to be read by the authors.
A Clear Structure
- A short summary of the paper’s aim and claimed contribution, in your own words
- The principal strengths of the work
- Major issues that affect the validity or significance of the findings
- Minor issues of presentation, clarity or referencing
- Separate confidential comments to the committee, where needed
A Constructive Tone
- Comment on the work itself
- Explain each concern and, where possible, suggest how it could be addressed
- Distinguish what is essential from what is desirable
- Request citations only where they are needed by the argument, and never to increase citations of your own work
- Avoid speculating about the identity of the authors
Making a Recommendation
The submission portal records your recommendation on the scale set for the edition. Whatever scale is used, the written justification matters more than the score: the committee reads the reasoning, compares it with the other reports, and may ask reviewers to reconcile substantially different views. A recommendation to reject should identify the specific problems that could not be remedied within the revision period. A recommendation to accept should still note any corrections the authors must make before the camera-ready deadline.
Confidentiality and Integrity
Confidentiality
- Treat the manuscript and your review as confidential documents
- Do not share the paper or discuss it with others without the organisers’ agreement
- Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools
- Delete your copies once the review is complete
Raising Concerns
- Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication or duplicate submission to the organisers confidentially
- Do not contact the authors directly
- Do not use unpublished material from a submission in your own work
- See the publication ethics statement for how concerns are handled
Joining the Reviewer Pool
Volunteer as a Reviewer
Researchers who hold a doctorate and have a publication record in the themes of the series are warmly invited to join the reviewer pool. Write to the organisers with your areas of expertise and a link to your institutional or ORCID profile.