Abstract Review Criteria

Evaluation of Proposals: Overview of Criteria

All proposals are evaluated through anonymous review by several reviewers. Each submission is rated by reviewers independently according to the criteria shown below:


Reviewer Response Options

Appropriateness and Importance of the Topic/Issue/Problem 

1 (poor) - 6 (excellent)

Original Research with Theoretical Basis

1 (poor) - 6 (excellent)

Research Design / Conceptual Framework

1 (poor) - 6 (excellent)

Organization and Clarity of Abstract

1 (poor) - 6 (excellent)

Potential to Contribute to Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

1 (poor) - 6 (excellent)

Overall Numerical Rating

Overall recommendation (select one)

Average of the first 5 criteria

Accept, Accept if Space, Reject


Open-ended feedback for the submitter


The rationale for these criteria is as follows:

  • The topic/issue/problem is appropriate and important
  • The research is original and theoretically grounded
  • If an empirical study, the research design is of high quality and sufficiently explained, including clearly stated questions, data sources, data collection procedures, and analytic approach
  • If a conceptual study, the conceptual framework is of high quality and clearly explained. The author needs to state the importance of the topic, make meaningful connections to the relevant research communities, and present their arguments in a persuasive manner.
  • The research contributes to AAAL's values of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion

As indicated in the Table above, each reviewer also makes a holistic recommendation to accept, accept if there is space, or reject; and they are encouraged but not required to offer open-ended feedback for the submitter.

Final decisions are made by the Conference Program Team based on: (a) the responses across categories (criteria above) provided by the reviewers on a given submission, (b) the overall global recommendation by Strand Coordinators, and (c) available space at the conference and balance across strands.

Additional Evaluation Criteria by Submission Type

Proposals for Roundtable Sessions will also be evaluated for:

  • Clarity of objectives and intended outcomes of the session
  • Methods planned to engage participants in the discussion

Proposals for 2-hour and 1-hour Colloquia will also be evaluated for each of the following categories:

  • Appropriateness and significance of the topic
  • Presentation of original and on-going research studies OR differing or dissenting perspectives on an important issue
  • Coherence and complementarity of the papers
  • Format or structure of the session
    • Two-Hour Colloquia: clearly indicated schedule of activity with significant amounts of time allocated for audience participation in discussion
    • One-Hour Colloquia: i) clearly indicated separate papers, each with content that lends itself to a short presentation; ii) a colloquium organizer (who must be one or more of the authors of the individual papers); and iii) a clearly indicated schedule that allows for a minimum of 20 minutes of discussion following the presentation of the three papers

Please note that if colloquia are accepted, the session format or structure, including the order of the presentations, will appear in the conference program as listed in the proposal and must be respected in the actual presentation of papers.