Hi Folks,
Judy and I are not in the position to make comments regarding the quality of
proposal submissions, but rather are adhering to the AERA General Procedures
and Policies appearing on the following URL. We will be using the blind
review process.
http://www.aera.net/meeting/am2004/call04/details/procedures.htm
I've reproduced one important section below, labeled (aera) , with comments
labeled (bb) for those of you who are kind enough to volunteer as a reviewer,
and for those of you submitting excellent proposals, so that in all fairness
we make explicit as possible the *content* guidelines used to assess
proposals. Judy and I expect to be doing final coordination of accepting
proposals, and we will be relying heavily upon the opinions of the volunteer
reviewers.
---------------------------------------
(aera) All proposals are sent to at least two individuals for review.
Individual proposals are reviewed blind (without author identification). The
decision to have blind review for session proposals is made at the
division/SIG level."
(bb) That's us.
(aera) Guidelines for reviewers are developed by each division or SIG.
Depending on the format and type of scholarly work being proposed, the
appropriate criteria from among the following will be used to evaluate
proposals:
(a) topic (originality, choice of problem, importance of issues, relevance to
program theme);
(b) relevance of topic to division, SIG, or committee;
(c) contribution to education (scientific/educational importance,
theoretical/practical significance);
(d) frameworks (theoretical/conceptual/practical frameworks, rationale,
literature review, grounding);
(e) analyses and interpretations (significance of conclusions; implications
for research, practice, policy; development of ideas; relationship of
conclusions to findings; generalizability or usefulness of findings or
concepts);
(f) written proposal (quality of writing, clarity, logic, organization);
(g) audience appeal (member appeal, journal article quality);
(h) mode of inquiry (research design, methods, rigor, use of evidence, quality
of data sources, adequacy);
(i) format (appropriateness of format to content, issues, or themes); and
(j) opportunities for interaction (opportunities for contributions from
audience or exchange of multiple perspectives).
(bb) The above guidelines provide flexibility for a variety of formats and
topics and approaches. It is in your best interest to address the applicable
guidelines directly, especially for those of you proposing to CHSIG for the
first time. Several phrases from guidelines b - e and h could be used as
organizational headers to help reviewers recognize how you address the
guidelines (This strategy has often worked for me) . It also appears that
aera makes it possible to edit your submissions, if you have already sent
something in.
Hope this helps.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PDT