Conference paper selection

  1. Shortlist paper proposals for consideration as full papers, based on double-blind review by at least 3 judges.
  2. Select the papers for the conference based on double-blind review by at least 3 judges.
    1. All papers will compete in one pool.
    2. The selected papers will be organized into coherent sessions by the administrative partner, who will also assign a chair and discussant for each session and initiate the mentoring process.
    3. The highest-ranked paper in each session will be shortlisted for the best-paper competition.  In the event non-shortlisted papers have significantly higher scores than shortlisted papers, the administrative partner may add up to three papers to the short list for a total of a maximum of n+3, n being the number of sessions.  It is necessary to have a short list of papers to be considered for the best-paper competition, to manage the workload of the judges.  The best paper and runner up are to be selected based on a mix of factors including content and presentation.  Audience scores will account for 40 per cent of the total as in previous competitions.
  3. Require that policy briefs be submitted by a set deadline
    1. The best policy brief (and runner up) will be selected by two judges with no audience participation, purely based on the written text.

 

Paper Proposals marking scheme

TITLE (5%): Is clear and communicates no more and no less than the content given in the proposal.

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH QUESTION: (15%): Captures the essence of the proposal in no more than 50 words

POLICY RELEVANCE (15%): The relevance of the proposal to identified decision-makers in the ICT space is explicated

COMPONENT RESEARCH QUESTIONS (15%): Breaks down the research question further and is linked to the research plan

RESEARCH PLAN (45%): Includes a literature search, method and data sources sections; LITERATURE REVIEW (15%): Summary of a preliminary literature search indicative of awareness of prior knowledge and a broad understanding of the concepts and facts relevant to the proposed research; METHOD (15%): The method can range from a meta-analysis of the literature to a random controlled trial study; DATA SOURCES (15%) If primary sources are to be used the mode of data acquisition is articulated; if secondary sources are to be used at least one comprehensive source is listed.

LIST OF REFERENCES/SOURCES (5%):  Identifies the key documents.  APA style is used.

Full paper marking scheme

TITLE (5%): Is clear and communicates no more and no less than the content given in the paper.

PRINCIPAL RESEARCH QUESTION: (10%): Captures the essence of the paper in no more than 50 words

POLICY RELEVANCE (10%): The relevance of the paper to identified decision-makers in the ICT space is explicated

RESEARCH (60%): Includes a literature search, method and data sources sections; LITERATURE REVIEW (10%): Summary of a preliminary literature search indicative of awareness of prior knowledge and a broad understanding of the concepts and facts relevant to the proposed research; METHOD (10%): The method can range from a meta-analysis of the literature to a random controlled trial study; DATA SOURCES (10%) If primary sources are to be used the mode of data acquisition is articulated; if secondary sources are used, all are listed; RESULTS & DISCUSSION (30%): are presented using tables, figures or other easy to follow means.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (10%):  Findings are easy to find and easy to understand. The findings are substantiated in the research section. They are not trivial.

LIST OF REFERENCES/SOURCES (5%):  Identifies the key documents.  APA style is used.

 

Policy Briefs marking scheme

TITLE (5%):  Clear; communicates no more and no less than the content given in the brief.

INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH (15%): Presents the background and the policy relevance of the topic clearly and concisely.

FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATIONS (15%): Are clear and convincing; supported by evidence in the research section

RESEARCH (45%): A method and sources of data, if used, are explicated; tables and graphs are used appropriately. Discussion is clear and targeted.

SOURCES (5%)

PRESENTATION (15%): Use of graphics, pictures or overall design aspects that may grab the attention of a policymaker and compel him/her to read the brief.

One Response to Conference paper selection

  1. Pingback: CPRsouth5: Full papers sent for review | CPRsouth

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>