Here are some suggestions for evaluators when reviewing submissions:
- Be aware that there are four types of works: scientific articles; technological articles/reports; Technical and Technological Product Reports – PTT; and posters. Tailor your review to the specific type of work received;
- Highlight not only the weaknesses of the work but also its strengths;
- Do not just point out problems in the evaluation. Offer tips for how the author(s) can improve their work;
- Your evaluation should be both qualitative (at least 125 words describing the strengths and improvement opportunities) and quantitative (scoring from 1 to 5 the work’s objectives, methodology, bibliography, writing, contribution, and relevance);
- Aim to be constructive in your reviews. Remember that it is an article submitted to a congress and could still be revised for a subsequent definitive submission to a journal;
- Keep in mind that your evaluation is crucial for the author(s) and can help them enhance their work;
- Be clear in your comments about the work. Avoid reviews that could further confuse the author(s);
- Be kind in your assessment. Treat the author(s) of the article as you would like to be treated;
- If you have any sensitive information about the work that should be directed to theme leaders and the organizing team – and not made available to the author(s) – include it in the “Comments restricted to coordination” field. Use this space to be clear about your final opinion of the article’s quality. Avoid indecision in your impressions of the work;
- If you believe the article is good and ready for journal publication, recommend it for fast track. Otherwise, do not make such a recommendation.
To assist evaluators, we suggest reading the following texts:
Brei V. A., Farias S. A. D., Matos C. A. D., & Mazzon J. A. (2017). A guide to evaluating scientific articles in marketing. Revista de Administração de Empresas, 57(4), 391-400. (and other articles listed).
