Sixteenth European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning
Technology-Enhanced Learning for a Free, Safe, and Sustainable World
Bozen-Bolzano, Italy, 20-24 September 2021
Review Process and Criteria
ECTEL knows multiple paper and submissions formats. Below we list the different expectations and review criteria for each category, as well as the best paper / demo / poster awards.
For all reviews the following holds true:
The review should firstly serve as constructive feedback to the authors. Authors have typically invested a lot of time and energy in this paper, and deserve a respectful, constructive reply. Reviewing is part of the ongoing scientific discourse, in the sense that researchers engage with each others’ works. Secondly, the review should be informative to the program chairs who will ultimately need to decide on paper acceptance.
All papers need to be correctly formatted and have a correct length. If they are not, they may be rejected without further review.
Contribution should be commensurate with length (8-14 pages) using LNCS Springer Conference Proceedings.
Relevance to the conference topics and appropriateness of keywords
Quality of writing/clarity of presentation
State of art regarding the research question
Contribution to the Field / Novelty
Methodology (suitable to the research question)
Overall evaluation (reject, weak reject, neutral, weak accept, accept)
Reviewers are expected to provide a rating to each paper according to the above criteria and a justification for their respective ratings in a written comment.
Especially, reviewers are asked to identify within the full review whether they would recommend the paper for a best paper award.
Posters & Demonstrations
Contributions should be commensurate with length (maximum 5 pages), using LNCS Springer Conference Proceedings. Poster and demo papers adhere to the same criteria and evaluation process as research papers. However, poster and demo papers present research-in-progress and describe innovative TEL applications related to the conference theme.
With respects to both poster and demo papers, reviewers are expected to provide an overall evaluation (reject, weak reject, neutral, weak accept, accept) and a full-text review that justifies their respective ratings in accordance to the following criteria:
- Relevance to the conference theme and related topics
- Quality of writing/clarity of presentation
- Contribution to the field/novelty
- Discussion of next steps (implications for the community regarding the conference theme and other related topics of technology-enhanced learning)
In addition to the aspects previously listed (relevance, quality, contribution, and discussion), reviewers would also expect the following from poster papers:
- Research question
- State of the art regarding the research question
- Methodology (suitable to the research question)
- Preliminary results – Presentation of outcomes achieved
In addition to the aspects previously listed (relevance, quality, contribution, and discussion), reviewers would also expect the following from demo papers:
- State of the art regarding the demo prototype
- Involved Stakeholders
- Use case (or a clear description on how the prototype would be used to improve learning and teaching practices)
The length of the paper should be proportionate to the contribution (5-10 pages) using the CEUR template.
Reviewers are asked for an overall evaluation (strong reject, reject, weak reject, neutral/borderline, weak accept, accept, strong accept) and are expected to provide a full-text review that justifies their rating and addresses the relevant criteria from the below list:
- Relevance to the conference topics
- Quality of writing/clarity of presentation
- Alignment with the Practice Track: Does the submission address a real-world problem?
- Awareness of alternative solutions or research: Does the paper show knowledge of state-of-the-art in practice and already available technology and pedagogy?
- Take-Away Message and Contribution: What does the paper contribute? Does it identify a relevant practical problem that would warrant more research? Does it describe a best practice that is relevant for the community? In what way is the identified problem or practical solution interesting and relevant to practitioners and researchers at EC-TEL?
Workshop proposals will be assessed according to their fit with EC-TEL 2021 conference topics, innovativeness, the extent of interaction, overall quality and comprehensiveness of planning (including planned dissemination activities to recruit attendants).
In case of overlapping workshops, organisers may be contacted to clearly differentiate the workshops or to merge them.