Submission review

Review Types

For a number of reasons, few IAMCR Sections or Working Groups review full papers. Therefore, paper submissions usually take the form of an abstract or extended abstract. Nevertheless, paper proposal abstracts are reviewed for quality and relevance to Sections and Working Groups.  It is normally expected that full papers will be prepared for the conference and forwarded to discussants an appropriate period of time ahead of the conference.  

Sections and Working Groups at IAMCR vary in the way that paper proposals are solicited and reviewed. This page indicates the various methods and criteria used. Individual scholars may wish to contact the Section Head or Working Group Chair to learn which methods and criteria are being employed.

Blind Review

A blind review is where submissions are reviewed by reviewers who do not know the name of the author(s) (files have had identifying information removed). Submissions are scored based upon academic criteria set by the Sections and Working Groups. Selection is based upon the scores and comments only, and sessions are constructed based on the submissions selected. This is the most common review type for most IAMCR sectons and working groups.

Section and Working Group Officers Review

This form of review is conducted by Section and Working Group officers. Submissions are reviewed either blindly or not. The criteria for the submissions are determined by the officers in committee. The selections can be based upon scores (as in blind review), or through discussions as a committee. It is possible to have themes in mind beforehand and selections based upon these themes.

Section and Working Group Head Review

The chair (or co-chairs) of a Section or Working Group makes the selections. Abstracts are selected based on academic standards and the themes of the group. Reviewing is not blind.

Review criteria

IAMCR's Scholarly Review Committee has developed a list of 6 criteria to be considered when reviewing an abstract. Sections and working groups do not all use the same criteria or they may give more weight to certain criteria. We recommend that you examine the section or working group's call for papers closely and contact the heads if you have questions.

The Scholarly Review Committee's recommended criteria are:

  1. The relevance of the submission to the section or working group
  2. The clarity and attainability of the research question(s)
  3. The author(s)' use of, or contribution to, theory
  4. The quality/rigour of research methodology
  5. The originality, significance and/or thought-provoking nature of the contribution
  6. The clarity of the writing

The pages in this section of the website contain some resources for IAMCR participants and for heads of sections and working groups as they prepare for the conference.

  • Guidelines for Presenters provides some suggested guidelines for scholars presenting papers at IAMCR conferences. These are suggested guidelines intended to be helpful on a voluntary basis; they are not strict rules and practices may vary among the various sections and working groups.
  • Session Types at IAMCR Conferences describes the two main types of sessions (Paper Presentation Session and Basic Panel Session) as well as a number of alternative session types that heads or participants might want to employ.
  • Submission Review describes the different types of review processes used by IAMCR's sections and working groups as well as the criteria that are most often used to evaluate proposals.
  • Tips for Session Chairs & Discussants offers ideas for how session chairs and discussants can ensure that sessions run smoothly, highlight scholarship, and encourage discussion.