Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Log in and select the ASEE 2023 annual conference to set up calls for papers, invite reviewers, update paper status, and more.
We are delighted that you will be working with us in Baltimore, Maryland and we appreciate all the effort on our behalf.
If you should have any questions please contact us at conferences@asee.org
For recommendations for offsite events, contact Morgan Simonet at Visit Baltimore: Msimonet@baltimore.org
Regards,
The Conferences Team
2023 Annual Conference Templates:
For your PowerPoint presentations at the 2023 Annual Conference, please utilize the provided template.
All deadlines occur at Midnight, Eastern Standard Time on the days listed
Sunday, October 1, 2023
All deadlines occur at Midnight, Eastern Standard Time on the days listed
Sunday, October 1, 2023
1. Uploading attachments
2. Paper Designations
3. Division Session Financials
4. Works in Progress
Be advised: If a Works in Progress abstract is submitted to a division that does not accept this designation, the Program Chair will need to reject the abstract. It is not done automatically by the system.
Visit [link pending] to access Paper Management.
As mandated by the ASEE Board of Directors, all divisions are publish to present. For a paper to be presented at the Annual Conference or included in the Conference Proceedings, it must pass through the entire review process and be accepted as shown below.
After a final paper has been accepted by the program chair, the following requirements must be met for it to be presented at a conference, and placed in the final program and proceedings:
All papers must have at least 1 author registered by Mon. April 8, 2023. After this date registrations are final and cannot be refunded without the paper being withdrawn.
If the conference registration is subsequently refunded, the paper will not be placed in a session, will not be presented at the conference, and will not appear in the final program and proceedings.
For all conferences, including ASEE-affiliated conferences, a paper that is published at one conference will not be automatically accepted for another ASEE conference. All papers for other conferences must be reviewed and accepted based on that conference’s criteria.
This does not include papers explicitly labeled as “reprints” as would be the case for best paper competitions, etc.
As the program chair, you can view all papers submitted to your division. You will see all papers you need to act on and overall statistics for your division.
The list of papers is organized so that papers requiring your attention or action are at the top of the list.
As program chair, you can expect to see the following status messages:
|
Transfer requested |
Another program chair has asked to transfer this paper to your division |
|
Assign reviews |
The submitted abstract or draft needs reviewers assigned to it |
|
Await reviews |
The reviews are assigned but not finished |
|
Abstract decision |
The abstract has been reviewed: accept or reject it |
|
Await draft |
The abstract was accepted but the author has not yet submitted a draft |
|
Draft Decision |
The draft has been reviewed and can be accepted or rejected. If reviewers have asked for revisions the paper can also be sent back for revisions |
|
Await revision |
Revisions to the draft were requested by the reviewers, Program chair consolidates revision requests and sends them to author |
|
Revision Decision |
Paper has been re-evaluated by the reviewer and is awaiting accept/reject from the Program Chair] |
|
Await payment |
The draft final was accepted but the author has not paid for registration |
|
|
The final draft has been accepted but registration has not been paid and copyright needs to be accepted, etc. |
|
Ready to Publish |
The accepted paper has a paid registration and is ready to be assigned to a session |
|
Withdrawn |
The author has chosen to withdraw the submission |
|
Rejected |
The abstract or draft was rejected |
|
Past deadline |
The paper has missed a deadline and is invalid |
Program chairs are responsible for requesting their divisions’ sessions at the Annual
Conference, including:
The following types of sessions will be pre-assigned based on the historical ratio of Abstracts
Please be advised that session requests are only requests. While the program committee attempts to allocate time and space to each division fairly, not all request can be accommodated. We recommend that you do not publicize sessions or invite speakers for specific time slots until you have received final approval and session time assignments from ASEE headquarters.
Any event not requested online will not be approved by the program committee and will not be held at the annual conference. You will receive the session approvals by late January .
Based on the number of abstracts received and attendance at past years’ sessions, each division will be automatically allotted a certain number of concurrent sessions. Some divisions may be assigned only one session in each time slot, other divisions are allotted more.
When you request sessions through the online application, it will provide you with all available options based on the type of session and your division’s allotment of session codes.
Sessions that are ticketed require attendees to obtain a ticket in advance to attend the session. Tickets can have a price or be free.
PLEASE NOTE you must make a session a ticketed event:
If ticket pricing is not received for any of the above referenced sessions, by the deadline, ASEE will make your ticket price $0.00
You can add any special session notes for HQ reference in the text box in the Amenities Section under Manager Sessions
Be advised that all special requests for set-up, etc. should be added in the requests text box.
You can see an example of a session sets here: (link to room sets on web)
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
If you plan to co-host an event with another division and split the cost, please note the percentage or dollar figure when sending the co-sponsor request.
As soon as the paper system opens, you want to create a pool of reviewers to review the abstracts and drafts for your division. Previous year’s division reviewers will be available for your use
You can invite your division’s reviewers by clicking on Reviewers on the right side of the main paper management screen.
Note: All reviews (abstracts and draft papers) are done in “double Anonymous” (meaning that the author does not know who the reviewers are and the reviewers do not know who the authors). Note: Program Chairs cannot be reviewers of abstracts or draft papers within their own division.
From the Reviewers page, you can view your division’s current reviewer roster, remove reviewers, and see the status of each reviewer’s reviews. You can also download reports with information on the reviewers and the status of their reviews.
From the Invite another reviewer page, you can add a reviewer in two ways: by searching through ASEE‟s membership or by providing the reviewer’s email address. When you invite a reviewer, they receive an email with instructions for logging in or creating an ASEE account. They have to log in and accept the invitation to be a reviewer before you can assign them any reviews. Reviewers can also decline the request. You will receive notification either way.
Reviewer Name
School
Reviewer Name
School
Reviewer Name
School
Abstracts submitted to your division appear on the main paper management screen with the status assign reviews. Click on the paper’s title to view its details page.
On the abstract’s details page, you can scroll down to preview or download the abstract. If the abstract does not fit your division, consider contacting the program chair of a more relevant division and asking if he or she would accept the abstract. If so, select the division’s name under Transfer this abstract and press Transfer. The Program Chair that the abstract is transferred to will either allow or deny the abstract to their division.
If the abstract does fit your division, you can assign reviewers for it. Select a reviewer from the dropdown list in the Reviews section and press Assign review.
After assigning a reviewer, you can continue to add other reviewers. Only 1 review per abstract is necessary, remind reviewers when a deadline is approaching, or remove a reviewer.
Once you have assigned reviewers for this abstract, its status changes to Awaiting reviews and it moves lower in the list of papers on the main paper management screen.
When the review is complete, the paper’s status changes to Abstract Decision and will move to the top of the list.
On the abstract’s details page, you can now view the rankings and comments provided by reviewers, compose comments to the abstract’s author, and decide to accept or reject it.
If the abstract is accepted then the abstract’s status changes to Awaiting draft until the author reviews your comments and uploads a draft version.
When the author submits a draft, the paper’s status changes to assign reviews and its phase changes from abstract to paper. On the paper’s details page you can assign, remove and browse reviews just as you did for the abstract. The paper’s status changes to Await reviews until the draft reviews are complete. These reviews are handled in the same manner as abstract reviews with the exception of being able to be nominated for best paper and the reviewer can also recommend the draft be accepted with changes, as well as accepted or rejected.
When the reviews are finished, the paper’s status changes to Draft Decision and moves to the top of your list of papers. The draft’s details page provides access to all reviews and allows you to compose comments to the author and accept or reject the paper as is or consolidate the reviewers comments and request revisions from the author.
Drafts that are accepted as is have a status of Await Final
Drafts that require revision will have the status of Await Draft Revisions.
When the author has uploaded the final version of an accepted draft the state will appear as
Accepted until they have paid the registration fee and accepted the copyright.
Once the author completes those steps the paper will have a status of Process Complete.
When a paper has major content revisions requested and the author uploads those revisions, the status changes to Review Revisions.
PLEASE BE ADVISED that Reviewers need to confirm that revisions were made to the paper and then send the Program Chair recommendations to accept or reject.
Reviewers are automatically assigned to a draft revision when it is uploaded.
The details page allows you to accept or reject all revised papers.
An accepted draft revision will have a status of Accepted and the author will be asked to pay the registration fee and accept copyright.
If a reviewer recommends a draft to be “accepted,” the reviewer will be asked to rank the paper by using the below matrix. This will assist in the ranking for Best Paper, as well as assist program chairs with the accept/reject decisions.
BE ADVISED: ranking the paper using the rubric is optional for reviewers.
Your final task in regards to papers is to nominate the best papers from your division. Each division may select up to 10% of its papers as best papers, but only one best paper per division may be submitted to the division PIC for consideration in the PIC Best Paper competition.
|
|
|
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. |
Each Author who submits an abstract to the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition is responsible for:
May 31, 2013; Revised October 2, 2014
The American Society for Engineering Education serves the engineering and technology communities by offering professional conferences, networking opportunities, and support of research in the various fields of engineering and technology related to education. Research is disseminated to the wider community via the organization’s professional publications. ASEE subscribes to the highest standards of ethical conduct, as detailed in the “ASEE Statement on Engineering Ethics Education,” located on the society’s website at http://www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/our-board-of-directors/asee-board-of-directors-statements/engineering-ethics-education.
In scholarly publication, plagiarism occurs when an author copies the words, illustrations, and ideas of others without identifying the sources. Plagiarism is unethical because it represents the theft of the intellectual work of others, and the subsequent misrepresentation of that work as the author’s own. An act of plagiarism not only violates intellectual property rights but is anathema to the principle of academic integrity, which is fundamental for scholarly research, writing, and publication. Inadvertent publication of plagiarized material can undermine the quality of a journal or proceedings.
When authors copy not from others but from themselves, by publishing the same article in multiple journals, the practice is called redundant or duplicate publication. Compared with plagiarism, duplicate publication is generally considered less serious, but it is still unethical. (The only exception is when reprinting has been appropriately approved and permission obtained from the original copyright holder; e.g., a keynote speech that has also been published.) Duplicate publication of the same article wastes space in journals and time of reviewers. Duplicate publication misrepresents the author’s record of scholarly contributions, and it corrupts meta-analyses of multiple studies on the same subject.
This policy outlines the steps that ASEE will take in response to allegations of plagiarism and duplicate publication involving articles published in or submitted to ASEE journals, magazines, and conference proceedings, including the annual conference, section and zone meetings, and the global colloquium.
Modifications. Minor modifications in this policy may be made at the discretion of the Executive Director of ASEE. For example, the Executive Director may extend a time period for good reasons, or appoint a substitute for the Editor-in-Chief in a case of conflict of interest.
ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM
Title of Paper: ________________________________________________________________________
Author(s): ______ _____________________________________________________________________
Publication: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings Session #: ___________
PART A
The undersigned, desiring to publish the above paper in a publication of ASEE or co-sponsored by ASEE, hereby transfers their copyrights in the above paper to the American Society for Engineering Education, known as ASEE.
In return for these rights, ASEE hereby grants the above author(s), and the employers for whom the work was performed, permission to:
-- Reuse portions of the above paper in other works;
-- Reproduce the above paper for personal or internal use;
-- Include the above paper in institutional repositories;
provided that (a) the source and ASEE copyright are indicated, (b) the copies are not used in a way that implies ASEE endorsement of product or service of an employer, and (c) the copies are not offered for sale.
The citation should make clear that it was originally presented at an ASEE conference (give location and year) and that ASEE holds the copyright. It should include this: ©year, American Society for Engineering Education.
In exercising its rights under copyright, ASEE requires that:
-- The consent of the first-named author is sought as a condition in granting republication permission by others.
-- The consent of the authors or their employers be obtained as a condition in granting permission to others to reuse a portion or all of the paper for promotion or marketing purposes.
Name: _________________________________ Title: ________________________________
Signature: __________________________________ (if not author, then relationship to author)
Employer: ___________________________________ Date Form Signed: ______________
PART B
(For U.S. Government Employees Only)
This will certify that all authors of the above paper are employees of the U.S. Government and performed this work as part of their employment.
Name: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________
Signature: __________________________________ (if not author, then relationship to author)
Govt. Organization: _________________________________ Date Form Signed: ____________
1. Uploading attachments
2. Paper Designations
3. Division Session Financials
4. Works in Progress
Be advised: If a Works in Progress abstract is submitted to a division that does not accept this designation, the Program Chair will need to reject the abstract. It is not done automatically by the system.
Visit [link pending] to access Paper Management.
As mandated by the ASEE Board of Directors, all divisions are publish to present. For a paper to be presented at the Annual Conference or included in the Conference Proceedings, it must pass through the entire review process and be accepted as shown below.
After a final paper has been accepted by the program chair, the following requirements must be met for it to be presented at a conference, and placed in the final program and proceedings:
All papers must have at least 1 author registered by Mon. April 8, 2023. After this date registrations are final and cannot be refunded without the paper being withdrawn.
If the conference registration is subsequently refunded, the paper will not be placed in a session, will not be presented at the conference, and will not appear in the final program and proceedings.
For all conferences, including ASEE-affiliated conferences, a paper that is published at one conference will not be automatically accepted for another ASEE conference. All papers for other conferences must be reviewed and accepted based on that conference’s criteria.
This does not include papers explicitly labeled as “reprints” as would be the case for best paper competitions, etc.
As the program chair, you can view all papers submitted to your division. You will see all papers you need to act on and overall statistics for your division.
The list of papers is organized so that papers requiring your attention or action are at the top of the list.
As program chair, you can expect to see the following status messages:
|
Transfer requested |
Another program chair has asked to transfer this paper to your division |
|
Assign reviews |
The submitted abstract or draft needs reviewers assigned to it |
|
Await reviews |
The reviews are assigned but not finished |
|
Abstract decision |
The abstract has been reviewed: accept or reject it |
|
Await draft |
The abstract was accepted but the author has not yet submitted a draft |
|
Draft Decision |
The draft has been reviewed and can be accepted or rejected. If reviewers have asked for revisions the paper can also be sent back for revisions |
|
Await revision |
Revisions to the draft were requested by the reviewers, Program chair consolidates revision requests and sends them to author |
|
Revision Decision |
Paper has been re-evaluated by the reviewer and is awaiting accept/reject from the Program Chair] |
|
Await payment |
The draft final was accepted but the author has not paid for registration |
|
|
The final draft has been accepted but registration has not been paid and copyright needs to be accepted, etc. |
|
Ready to Publish |
The accepted paper has a paid registration and is ready to be assigned to a session |
|
Withdrawn |
The author has chosen to withdraw the submission |
|
Rejected |
The abstract or draft was rejected |
|
Past deadline |
The paper has missed a deadline and is invalid |
Program chairs are responsible for requesting their divisions’ sessions at the Annual
Conference, including:
The following types of sessions will be pre-assigned based on the historical ratio of Abstracts
Please be advised that session requests are only requests. While the program committee attempts to allocate time and space to each division fairly, not all request can be accommodated. We recommend that you do not publicize sessions or invite speakers for specific time slots until you have received final approval and session time assignments from ASEE headquarters.
Any event not requested online will not be approved by the program committee and will not be held at the annual conference. You will receive the session approvals by late January .
Based on the number of abstracts received and attendance at past years’ sessions, each division will be automatically allotted a certain number of concurrent sessions. Some divisions may be assigned only one session in each time slot, other divisions are allotted more.
When you request sessions through the online application, it will provide you with all available options based on the type of session and your division’s allotment of session codes.
Sessions that are ticketed require attendees to obtain a ticket in advance to attend the session. Tickets can have a price or be free.
PLEASE NOTE you must make a session a ticketed event:
If ticket pricing is not received for any of the above referenced sessions, by the deadline, ASEE will make your ticket price $0.00
You can add any special session notes for HQ reference in the text box in the Amenities Section under Manager Sessions
Be advised that all special requests for set-up, etc. should be added in the requests text box.
You can see an example of a session sets here: (link to room sets on web)
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
Please note that a fee will be incurred for additional AV orders.
If you plan to co-host an event with another division and split the cost, please note the percentage or dollar figure when sending the co-sponsor request.
As soon as the paper system opens, you want to create a pool of reviewers to review the abstracts and drafts for your division. Previous year’s division reviewers will be available for your use
You can invite your division’s reviewers by clicking on Reviewers on the right side of the main paper management screen.
Note: All reviews (abstracts and draft papers) are done in “double Anonymous” (meaning that the author does not know who the reviewers are and the reviewers do not know who the authors). Note: Program Chairs cannot be reviewers of abstracts or draft papers within their own division.
From the Reviewers page, you can view your division’s current reviewer roster, remove reviewers, and see the status of each reviewer’s reviews. You can also download reports with information on the reviewers and the status of their reviews.
From the Invite another reviewer page, you can add a reviewer in two ways: by searching through ASEE‟s membership or by providing the reviewer’s email address. When you invite a reviewer, they receive an email with instructions for logging in or creating an ASEE account. They have to log in and accept the invitation to be a reviewer before you can assign them any reviews. Reviewers can also decline the request. You will receive notification either way.
Reviewer Name
School
Reviewer Name
School
Reviewer Name
School
Abstracts submitted to your division appear on the main paper management screen with the status assign reviews. Click on the paper’s title to view its details page.
On the abstract’s details page, you can scroll down to preview or download the abstract. If the abstract does not fit your division, consider contacting the program chair of a more relevant division and asking if he or she would accept the abstract. If so, select the division’s name under Transfer this abstract and press Transfer. The Program Chair that the abstract is transferred to will either allow or deny the abstract to their division.
If the abstract does fit your division, you can assign reviewers for it. Select a reviewer from the dropdown list in the Reviews section and press Assign review.
After assigning a reviewer, you can continue to add other reviewers. Only 1 review per abstract is necessary, remind reviewers when a deadline is approaching, or remove a reviewer.
Once you have assigned reviewers for this abstract, its status changes to Awaiting reviews and it moves lower in the list of papers on the main paper management screen.
When the review is complete, the paper’s status changes to Abstract Decision and will move to the top of the list.
On the abstract’s details page, you can now view the rankings and comments provided by reviewers, compose comments to the abstract’s author, and decide to accept or reject it.
If the abstract is accepted then the abstract’s status changes to Awaiting draft until the author reviews your comments and uploads a draft version.
When the author submits a draft, the paper’s status changes to assign reviews and its phase changes from abstract to paper. On the paper’s details page you can assign, remove and browse reviews just as you did for the abstract. The paper’s status changes to Await reviews until the draft reviews are complete. These reviews are handled in the same manner as abstract reviews with the exception of being able to be nominated for best paper and the reviewer can also recommend the draft be accepted with changes, as well as accepted or rejected.
When the reviews are finished, the paper’s status changes to Draft Decision and moves to the top of your list of papers. The draft’s details page provides access to all reviews and allows you to compose comments to the author and accept or reject the paper as is or consolidate the reviewers comments and request revisions from the author.
Drafts that are accepted as is have a status of Await Final
Drafts that require revision will have the status of Await Draft Revisions.
When the author has uploaded the final version of an accepted draft the state will appear as
Accepted until they have paid the registration fee and accepted the copyright.
Once the author completes those steps the paper will have a status of Process Complete.
When a paper has major content revisions requested and the author uploads those revisions, the status changes to Review Revisions.
PLEASE BE ADVISED that Reviewers need to confirm that revisions were made to the paper and then send the Program Chair recommendations to accept or reject.
Reviewers are automatically assigned to a draft revision when it is uploaded.
The details page allows you to accept or reject all revised papers.
An accepted draft revision will have a status of Accepted and the author will be asked to pay the registration fee and accept copyright.
If a reviewer recommends a draft to be “accepted,” the reviewer will be asked to rank the paper by using the below matrix. This will assist in the ranking for Best Paper, as well as assist program chairs with the accept/reject decisions.
BE ADVISED: ranking the paper using the rubric is optional for reviewers.
Your final task in regards to papers is to nominate the best papers from your division. Each division may select up to 10% of its papers as best papers, but only one best paper per division may be submitted to the division PIC for consideration in the PIC Best Paper competition.
|
|
|
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. |
Each Author who submits an abstract to the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition is responsible for:
May 31, 2013; Revised October 2, 2014
The American Society for Engineering Education serves the engineering and technology communities by offering professional conferences, networking opportunities, and support of research in the various fields of engineering and technology related to education. Research is disseminated to the wider community via the organization’s professional publications. ASEE subscribes to the highest standards of ethical conduct, as detailed in the “ASEE Statement on Engineering Ethics Education,” located on the society’s website at http://www.asee.org/about-us/the-organization/our-board-of-directors/asee-board-of-directors-statements/engineering-ethics-education.
In scholarly publication, plagiarism occurs when an author copies the words, illustrations, and ideas of others without identifying the sources. Plagiarism is unethical because it represents the theft of the intellectual work of others, and the subsequent misrepresentation of that work as the author’s own. An act of plagiarism not only violates intellectual property rights but is anathema to the principle of academic integrity, which is fundamental for scholarly research, writing, and publication. Inadvertent publication of plagiarized material can undermine the quality of a journal or proceedings.
When authors copy not from others but from themselves, by publishing the same article in multiple journals, the practice is called redundant or duplicate publication. Compared with plagiarism, duplicate publication is generally considered less serious, but it is still unethical. (The only exception is when reprinting has been appropriately approved and permission obtained from the original copyright holder; e.g., a keynote speech that has also been published.) Duplicate publication of the same article wastes space in journals and time of reviewers. Duplicate publication misrepresents the author’s record of scholarly contributions, and it corrupts meta-analyses of multiple studies on the same subject.
This policy outlines the steps that ASEE will take in response to allegations of plagiarism and duplicate publication involving articles published in or submitted to ASEE journals, magazines, and conference proceedings, including the annual conference, section and zone meetings, and the global colloquium.
Modifications. Minor modifications in this policy may be made at the discretion of the Executive Director of ASEE. For example, the Executive Director may extend a time period for good reasons, or appoint a substitute for the Editor-in-Chief in a case of conflict of interest.
ASEE ANNUAL CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION
COPYRIGHT TRANSFER FORM
Title of Paper: ________________________________________________________________________
Author(s): ______ _____________________________________________________________________
Publication: ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings Session #: ___________
PART A
The undersigned, desiring to publish the above paper in a publication of ASEE or co-sponsored by ASEE, hereby transfers their copyrights in the above paper to the American Society for Engineering Education, known as ASEE.
In return for these rights, ASEE hereby grants the above author(s), and the employers for whom the work was performed, permission to:
-- Reuse portions of the above paper in other works;
-- Reproduce the above paper for personal or internal use;
-- Include the above paper in institutional repositories;
provided that (a) the source and ASEE copyright are indicated, (b) the copies are not used in a way that implies ASEE endorsement of product or service of an employer, and (c) the copies are not offered for sale.
The citation should make clear that it was originally presented at an ASEE conference (give location and year) and that ASEE holds the copyright. It should include this: ©year, American Society for Engineering Education.
In exercising its rights under copyright, ASEE requires that:
-- The consent of the first-named author is sought as a condition in granting republication permission by others.
-- The consent of the authors or their employers be obtained as a condition in granting permission to others to reuse a portion or all of the paper for promotion or marketing purposes.
Name: _________________________________ Title: ________________________________
Signature: __________________________________ (if not author, then relationship to author)
Employer: ___________________________________ Date Form Signed: ______________
PART B
(For U.S. Government Employees Only)
This will certify that all authors of the above paper are employees of the U.S. Government and performed this work as part of their employment.
Name: _________________________________ Title: ______________________________
Signature: __________________________________ (if not author, then relationship to author)
Govt. Organization: _________________________________ Date Form Signed: ____________
