home - login - register

Evaluation Criteria

The PERC Proceedings are intended to be inclusive; welcoming not just significant or final results, but also preliminary research results and discussions of works-in-progress. A peer reviewer can only evaluate what the authors chose to include in the paper. Thus, each paper should be evaluated on the merit of what is presented versus what should/could have been presented.

Contributed papers submitted to the PERC Proceedings are reviewed based on the following six criteria:

  1. Interest/Value to the PER Community;
  2. Content Novelty;
  3. Strength of Research;
  4. Conclusions;
  5. Organization of Ideas; and
  6. Grammar and Formatting.

Criterion Description

Originality

Interest/Value to the PER Community

An important criterion for publication is interest/value to the PER Community. While the PERC Proceedings are meant to be inclusive, welcoming not just significant or final results, but also preliminary research results and discussions of works in progress, well written papers that are not of interest or deemed relevant to the PER community are not appropriate for the PERC Proceedings. Papers that you feel the PER community would find thought-provoking or that make a contribution to the existing body of research should receive marks of 3 - 5 in this category.

Content Novelty

Obviously, new research should score highly in this category, as should work that is not necessarily entirely novel, but a worthwhile confirmation or extension of previous work.

Research Design

Strength of Research

Here you should judge the appropriateness of the research methods and how effectively the researchers put those methods into practice. Look for techniques you feel could/should have been used but were not. Not all reviewers come to the review process with the same skill sets but all should have at least some familiarity with the types of research that may be conducted.

Papers that do not contain new research or data, but rather present ideas for the community's consideration can still be judged, but with slightly different considerations. Questions to consider in this situation are:

Conclusions

Interpretation of results should be a major part of this section as well as implications of the results.

Structure

Organization of Ideas

Sometimes a paper's content is novel and the research is sound, but the presentation is weak. If a paper is weak in the presentation (but can be improved in a minimal re-write), indicate that in this category.

Grammar and Formatting

All authors are expected to follow the PERC Proceedings Style Guide Summary. Rate the papers based on how well the author(s) followed these guidelines, edited their own work, and followed accepted norms for writing a peer reviewed, scientific journal paper. Minor issues of formatting should be pointed out, but should not lead to a negative review.