GLOW 37 Main Colloquium: Reviewing Process

  1. The local organizers assign each abstract to 5 reviewers, based on the content of the abstract, the language(s) under investigation, and the theoretical perspective. Abstracts will not be sent to reviewers with the same affiliation as the author(s). Reviewers can decline to review abstracts if they feel they are unable to provide an impartial assessment. Reviewing is double-blind: author names are not revealed to reviewers and vice versa.

  2. Reviewers rate each abstract on the following five-point scale:

    • 5: excellent, definite accept
    • 4: good, possible accept
    • 3: borderline, undecided
    • 2: poor, possible reject

    • 1: very poor, definite reject

    In addition, reviewers are asked to submit comments for (i) the authors or (ii) the selection committee members. Comments under (ii) will be treated confidentially and will not be relayed to the abstract submitters.

  3. The EasyChair conference system calculates the average score for each abstract, and ranks the abstracts according to this score. The local organizers check if this calculation and ranking has proceeded correctly.

  4. The selection committee consists of three local organizers and three members of the GLOW board. Each member of the selection committee anonymously reviews 60 abstracts:

    1. the 50 abstracts which are ranked highest by EasyChair. The exact number may vary slightly depending on whether there is a clear gap in the scores close to the 50th abstract

    2. the 10 abstracts with the highest standard deviation (calculated by the local organizers).

  5. The assessments of the initial reviewers and those of the selection committee members are presented separately to the selection committee. Based on this, the selection committee selects 20 abstracts to be presented as papers, 3 as alternates, and 20 as posters. Each alternate will be given the opportunity to present his/her work as a poster, resulting in a maximum of 23 posters in total.

  6. All abstract submitters receive as feedback the individual scores and author comments provided by each of the five initial reviewers. They also receive the cut-off point separating the 50 or so highest ranked abstracts from the rest, the average score, and the median score.

  7. Local organizers, members of the selection committee, and the GLOW chairperson cannot submit abstracts.