logo

2023 Conference Banner 2023 Conference Banner


For Reviewers:

To access papers to review: 

Log into  https://nemo.asee.org/ 
Click on the 2024 Annual Conference
Click on Manage Papers 


For reviewer guidelines questions, contact the Program Chair

For technical difficulties, contact conferences@asee.org 

Reviewer Guidelines

Expand All

Collapse All

An abstract or manuscript submitted to a conference reflects scholarly work performed by one or more practicing professionals. The recommendations on these submissions made by reviewers, and the subsequent decisions rendered by program chairs, thus have an impact on the authors’ careers. To help ensure a fair and equitable process, the chairs of ASEE’s Professional Interest Councils have developed the following reviewing guidelines.
 
Reviewers are expected to:

  • Read the entirety of a submission
  • Critically assess the extent to which a submission meets the specified guidelines (the unit’s Call for Papers, Best Paper Rubric, etc.)
  • Provide constructive criticism based on professional judgment.
  • Use respectful language in their review
  • Submit their review within the stated time frame

  1. Reviewers are selected by the ASEE Annual Conference Program Chairs for their specific division through our Paper Submission System 
  2. You will get an email request from the program Chair
    1. Reviewers have the option to accept or decline this request
    2. Please note: No reviews will be assigned until the request has been accepted
  3. Reviews are all done anonymously, with no individual indicators in the abstracts and/or papers
    1. Abstracts require one (1) anonymous review
    2. Papers require three (3) anonymous reviews
  4. Abstract Reviews:
    1. You can rank the abstract and make a recommendation to the Program Chair to accept or reject the abstract
  5. Paper Reviews:
    1. You can rank the paper and make a recommendation to the Program Chair to
      1. Accept the paper as is
      2. Request Revisions
      3. Reject the paper
Be Advised: If revisions are requested, the reviewer will be required to re-review the paper to confirm revisions were completed

Once a revision is confirmed, you can send the accept or reject recommendations to the program chair

If you indicate that the paper should be considered for “Best Paper” you will be prompted to complete the Best Paper Rubric (see below for a sample).

Deadlines and timeframes:
  1. Deadlines and timeframes are very important, please be sure to stay on schedule with reviews
  2. Each review phase has a specific deadline
  3.  Deadlines can be found on the Paper Management section of the website
 
 

Each row is to be scored independently from zero to three points.

 

 

3-Excellent

2- Good

1 - Satisfactory

0 – Needs Improvement

CONTENT

Originality

Content contains highly original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Content contains some original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic

Content contains moderately original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Content contains minimal original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Research Approach

The research approach is novel and/or sophisticated and appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific).

The research approach is advanced and appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific)

The research approach is basic, but still appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific).

The research approach is inadequate and/or not appropriate for the purpose of the paper.

Results

Data collection and assessment results are very clear and logical, strongly supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results are clear and logical, supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results are somewhat clear and logical, moderately supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results need improvement.

Scholarship

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a significant extent.

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a moderate extent.

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a limited extent.

Content does not review and build on appropriate prior work.

Relevance

The paper makes a highly significant contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a significant contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a moderate contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a minimal contribution to the field of engineering education.

FOCUS

Goals

The goals are strongly developed and explicitly stated

The goals are developed and explicitly stated.

The goals are not fully developed and/or stated.

The goals are not developed and/or stated

Order

The order in which ideas are presented is explicitly and consistently clear, logical and effective.

The order in which ideas are presented is reasonably clear, logical and effective, but could be improved

The order in which ideas are presented is occasionally confusing.

There is little apparent structure to the flow of ideas, causing confusion.

Conclusions

The conclusions are very well formulated and are strongly supported by the data.

The conclusions are well formulated and are supported by the data.

The conclusions are moderately effective and are only partially supported by the data.

The conclusions are minimally effective and do not appear to be supported by the data

LANGUAGE

Style

The paper is clear, concise, and consistent. It is easily understandable and a pleasure to read.

The paper is mostly understandable, with occasional inconsistencies that could be improved

Multiple sections of the paper are difficult to read/understand. The paper could be better structured or more clearly explained

The paper is difficult to read/understand due to sentence/paragraph structure, word choices, lack of explanations, etc.

Mechanics

The writing is near perfect with little to no grammar or spelling errors.

Minor grammar or spelling errors are present, but do not detract from the content. Content is clear

Some grammar or spelling errors are significant and detract from the content. Paper requires further editing.

Pervasive grammar or spelling errors distort meaning and make reading difficult.
 

 

 

An abstract or manuscript submitted to a conference reflects scholarly work performed by one or more practicing professionals. The recommendations on these submissions made by reviewers, and the subsequent decisions rendered by program chairs, thus have an impact on the authors’ careers. To help ensure a fair and equitable process, the chairs of ASEE’s Professional Interest Councils have developed the following reviewing guidelines.
 
Reviewers are expected to:

  • Read the entirety of a submission
  • Critically assess the extent to which a submission meets the specified guidelines (the unit’s Call for Papers, Best Paper Rubric, etc.)
  • Provide constructive criticism based on professional judgment.
  • Use respectful language in their review
  • Submit their review within the stated time frame

  1. Reviewers are selected by the ASEE Annual Conference Program Chairs for their specific division through our Paper Submission System 
  2. You will get an email request from the program Chair
    1. Reviewers have the option to accept or decline this request
    2. Please note: No reviews will be assigned until the request has been accepted
  3. Reviews are all done anonymously, with no individual indicators in the abstracts and/or papers
    1. Abstracts require one (1) anonymous review
    2. Papers require three (3) anonymous reviews
  4. Abstract Reviews:
    1. You can rank the abstract and make a recommendation to the Program Chair to accept or reject the abstract
  5. Paper Reviews:
    1. You can rank the paper and make a recommendation to the Program Chair to
      1. Accept the paper as is
      2. Request Revisions
      3. Reject the paper
Be Advised: If revisions are requested, the reviewer will be required to re-review the paper to confirm revisions were completed

Once a revision is confirmed, you can send the accept or reject recommendations to the program chair

If you indicate that the paper should be considered for “Best Paper” you will be prompted to complete the Best Paper Rubric (see below for a sample).

Deadlines and timeframes:
  1. Deadlines and timeframes are very important, please be sure to stay on schedule with reviews
  2. Each review phase has a specific deadline
  3.  Deadlines can be found on the Paper Management section of the website
 
 

Each row is to be scored independently from zero to three points.

 

 

3-Excellent

2- Good

1 - Satisfactory

0 – Needs Improvement

CONTENT

Originality

Content contains highly original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Content contains some original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic

Content contains moderately original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Content contains minimal original treatment of, or new perspective on, the topic.

Research Approach

The research approach is novel and/or sophisticated and appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific).

The research approach is advanced and appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific)

The research approach is basic, but still appropriate for the purpose of the paper, and is consistent with the perspective (quantitative, qualitative, mixed, or more specific).

The research approach is inadequate and/or not appropriate for the purpose of the paper.

Results

Data collection and assessment results are very clear and logical, strongly supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results are clear and logical, supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results are somewhat clear and logical, moderately supporting the goals of the paper.

Data collection and assessment results need improvement.

Scholarship

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a significant extent.

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a moderate extent.

Content reviews and builds on appropriate prior work to a limited extent.

Content does not review and build on appropriate prior work.

Relevance

The paper makes a highly significant contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a significant contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a moderate contribution to the field of engineering education.

The paper makes a minimal contribution to the field of engineering education.

FOCUS

Goals

The goals are strongly developed and explicitly stated

The goals are developed and explicitly stated.

The goals are not fully developed and/or stated.

The goals are not developed and/or stated

Order

The order in which ideas are presented is explicitly and consistently clear, logical and effective.

The order in which ideas are presented is reasonably clear, logical and effective, but could be improved

The order in which ideas are presented is occasionally confusing.

There is little apparent structure to the flow of ideas, causing confusion.

Conclusions

The conclusions are very well formulated and are strongly supported by the data.

The conclusions are well formulated and are supported by the data.

The conclusions are moderately effective and are only partially supported by the data.

The conclusions are minimally effective and do not appear to be supported by the data

LANGUAGE

Style

The paper is clear, concise, and consistent. It is easily understandable and a pleasure to read.

The paper is mostly understandable, with occasional inconsistencies that could be improved

Multiple sections of the paper are difficult to read/understand. The paper could be better structured or more clearly explained

The paper is difficult to read/understand due to sentence/paragraph structure, word choices, lack of explanations, etc.

Mechanics

The writing is near perfect with little to no grammar or spelling errors.

Minor grammar or spelling errors are present, but do not detract from the content. Content is clear

Some grammar or spelling errors are significant and detract from the content. Paper requires further editing.

Pervasive grammar or spelling errors distort meaning and make reading difficult.
 

 

 

Are you interested in volunteering to review for your division? Contact your Program Chair today. 

Division Officer contacts can be found here.

Access NEMO Paper Management

Log in and select the ASEE 2023 annual conference to set up calls for papers, invite reviewers, update paper status, and more.