Abstracts are selected on a double blind process. The reviewer, award marks to abstracts based on the following criteria.

1. Clarity of the thesis or the research finding
2. Refers to previous studies
3. Identifies the data or case studies to be used
4. Identifies a framework for the analysis
5. Analytical framework is appropriate
6. Adequacy of methods
7. Quality of writing
8. The author is likely to produce a high quality paper
9. Can be basis of a policy recommendation to government or to private sector

Novelty, significance, and importance to the CPRsouth community

How papers are selected for CPRsouth

1.0    Getting selected to present a paper at CPRsouth is valuable in several senses:  it is the result of a rigorous competitive process; it provides useful feedback that can help the researcher develop him/herself; it comes with significant financial assistance to participate.  Therefore, CPRsouth makes best efforts to ensure that the selection process is fair and that no one has undue advantages.

2.0   The first screen is double-blind.  Abstracts received by the closing date are sent to three judges (members of the CPRsouth Board + other senior scholars attending CPRsouth) after removing identifying information.  The administrative partner, LIRNEasia, makes best efforts to ensure that abstracts from a person directly connected to a judge do not get assigned to such a judge (e.g., a LIRNEasia researcher’s abstracts are not given to Rohan Samarajiva).  In the rare case that we miss such a conflict and a judge notices the conflict, the abstract is returned without a score and alternative arrangements are be made.  The scores given by the judges are averaged to arrive at the shortlist.

3.0   The shortlisted abstracts are grouped into sessions by the administrative partner who also assigns senior scholars as Chair and Discussant based on their expertise and wishes.  Best efforts are made to avoid conflicts in this non-blinded review phase, i.e., Samarajiva does not normally serve as Chair/Discussant in sessions with a LIRNEasia researchers.  In the event such a conflict arises, especially because of adjustments made because of cancellations, an external judge will be substituted for assessing the affected paper.

4.0   The scores given by the second-round judges (the Chair and Discussant of the session) on a common template are averaged to select the three or fewer papers that will be funded per session.  Judges are encouraged to give feedback to all papers, and in particular to the selected papers, if necessary on multiple drafts, so that their quality can be improved prior to the conference.

5.0   The top paper in each session is then shortlisted (total of seven) for the best-paper competition.  The judges for this competition are appointed by the Board and do not participate in the selection process that leads up to the shortlisting.  They read the papers and policy briefs and listen to the presentations.  Here, too precautions are taken to avoid conflict of interest.  The selection of the winner is based on the scores given by the judges and also the evaluations by the audience.

6.0   The above procedures for selecting papers have been followed in all CPRsouth conferences except the first, where not all papers came through competition.   The best-paper competition which started in CPRsouth3 in Beijing has followed the procedures set out under 5.0 throughout.