The reviewing of submitted abstract proposals and finished papers will be conducted by subcommittees consisting of at least: two teachers, two students, and one alumnus of Anatolia College currently enrolled in a university program in a related field. As ACSTAC is an organization run largely by students for students, the responsibility of the reviewing process weighs primarily on peer review. While teachers will read and assess paper submissions, their role will lie more in the supervision of the reviewing process.
ACSTAC’s multiple review procedure ensures a high standard of quality and merit in papers chosen for presentation. Collaboration and discussion are disallowed during the reviewing process; however, the two students and alumnus may meet as many times as they wish before reviewing begins in order to clarify evaluation criteria and the procedure outlined by the ACSTAC Handbook.
Abstracts and their associated papers will be initially received by the Website Contact, who will forward submissions to the respective teacher-reviewers of each field. The teacher-reviewers will then forward the papers to their subcommittee’s students and alumnus. Abstracts and papers will be reviewed independently by each of the subcommittee members. Finally, the teachers will evaluate the student and alumnus’ reviews on the fairness and relevance of their assessments. Final decisions regarding accepted papers will be sent to the Scientific Committee; teacher-reviewer concerns and disputes regarding papers’ content, references, or reviewing process protocol will be directed to the Scientific Committee.
Consequently, the duties of a student or alumnus reviewer are:
a. To conduct an individual review of author abstracts;
b. To conduct an individual review of author papers;
c. To prepare author feedback according to the Evaluation Criteria;
d. To send the review results to the teacher-reviewers;
e. To maintain communication with the rest of the members of their subcommittee;
f. To provide feedback to the teacher-reviewers concerning the corrections of the submitted papers.
The duties of the teacher -reviewers are:
a. To check the abstract and paper reviews, prepared by the student and alumni reviewers;
b. To send a reply to the student and alumni reviewers regarding the approval or the disapproval of their abstract and paper reviews. In the case of disagreement with either of the students or the alumnus, the teacher may ask for the abstract to be reevaluated providing detailed grounds (e.g. specifying particular sections of the abstract proposal which should be reexamined or indicating why the evaluation grades given are inappropriate according to the teacher’s opinion). The teacher is responsible for the final decisions;
c. To check the author feedback prepared by the student and alumni reviewers and make sure that it conforms with the Evaluation Criteria document, while also ensuring that it is consistent with any language rules;
d. To send the review results to the Scientific Committee;
e. To maintain that the students and the alumnus are doing the work they have been assigned to do throughout the reviewing process.
f. To provide feedback to the Scientific Committee regarding the entire reviewing procedure.
Submitted papers will be evaluated on the basis of the following criteria:
¤ Adequacy of references;
¤ Appeal of content;
¤ Evidence of ascientific approach to presenting thetopic;
¤ Innovativ eapproach/thinking or new ideas;
¤ Suitable use of language.