ECTEL 2026: Review criteria

ECTEL knows multiple paper and submissions formats. Below we list the different expectations and review criteria for each category.

For all reviews, the following holds true:

Reviews should first and foremost provide constructive feedback to the authors. Authors have typically invested significant time and effort in their work and deserve respectful and thoughtful engagement. Reviewing is part of the ongoing scientific discourse, allowing researchers to engage critically and productively with each other’s work. At the same time, reviews should provide clear and informative input to the program chairs, who will ultimately decide on paper acceptance.

All papers need to be correctly formatted and have the correct length. If they are not, they may be rejected without further review.

Submissions will be reviewed according to five following criteria:

1. Fit and contribution:

Does this paper clearly address technology-enhanced learning and does it make a meaningful contribution?

For example:

• Is the problem and relevance clear (i.e. what changes if the claim holds)?
• Is the contribution type clear (design knowledge / testing theory / efficacy of tool or system / innovative method or measurement / theory integration / replication / policy)?
• Does the paper address both technology and learning, rather one or the other?

2. Grounding and argument quality:

Is the paper well-grounded in the research literature and logically argued?

For example:

• Is the theoretical and conceptual framing appropriate to the claim?
• Is it positioned against key related work?
• Are limitations of scope or evidence acknowledged?

3. Methodological rigor and evidential support:

Are the methods appropriate and are the inferences warranted by the evidence?

For example:

• Do question, design, data, and analysis align?
• Are standards of quality and validity met for the chosen approach (quant/qual/DBR/theoretical synthesis etc.)?
• Are claims proportionate (no over-claiming)?

4. Educational purpose, human-centeredness, and context:

Does the paper make its educational purpose and context of use sufficiently clear, in a way that matches its contribution?

For example:

• Are intended users/stakeholders clear, and implications for learner/teacher considered where relevant?
• Are boundary conditions/context constraints acknowledged (incl. accessibility/equity where relevant)?
• Are salient risks/trade-offs acknowledged/discussed in proportion to the system’s role?

5. Communication quality:

Are the paper’s contents communicated clearly enough to be assessed and used by the community?

For example:

• Is the writing and structure of the manuscript clear?
• Does the reporting match standards and is complete?
• Are figures and tables understandable?

Overall evaluation: reject, weak reject, neutral, weak accept, accept

Reviewers are expected to provide a rating of each paper according to the above criteria and a justification for their respective ratings in a written comment.