REVIEWING PROCEDURE

 

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 oAnatolia 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.

 

ACSTACs 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 thpapers  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 paperwill bsent 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;

bTo conduct an individual review of author papers;

c.   To prepare author feedback according to the Evaluation Criteria;

dTo 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;

bTo 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 indicatinwhy 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;

dTo 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:

¤ Clarity;

¤ Originality;

¤ Adequacy of references;

¤ Appeal ocontent;

¤ Evidence of ascientific approach to presenting thetopic;

¤ Innovatieapproach/thinking or new ideas;

¤ Suitable use of language.

ACSTAC Accreditations

ACSTAC is an Official Greek Ministry of Education Event.

short minedu 2tel

 

ACSTAC is supported by the City of Thessaloniki.

cityofthess

ACSTAC is supported by Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

auth logo

ACSTAC is an Official CERN Event.

cern

ACSTAC is an Official EPS Event.

eps

ACSTAC is supported by ACT.

act logo