Abstract review criteria – academic contributions

Presentation Excellent (5p) Good (3p) Insufficient (1p)
  1. Aim & Problem
The contribution has a
clearly articulated
question or problem
formulation and the
contextualization of
the contribution is
relevant to the meeting.
The contribution has the
potential to stimulate
relevant discussion on EE/ESD.

 

The question or problem is formulated and the contribution is reasonably contextualized. The contribution is insufficiently motivated for the meeting and the question or problem formulation is incomplete or missing.
  1. Scholarly contextualisation
The contribution is explicitly
situated and supported
in relevant research or
praxis via clear reference
to theories, approaches and communities.

 

The contribution is connected to research or praxis. The connection to praxis or research is missing or vague.
  1. Method
Methods or approaches
are described and
motivated relative
the question or
problem formulations of
the contribution.

 

The contribution describes methods and approaches explicitly. Methods/approaches are not sufficiently accounted for.
  1. Findings
Results and analyses
of data are related
to and develop the
aim, question
or problem formulations,
methods, as well as
research and praxis.

 

Results and data are accounted for
in relation to the question or
problem formulation.
The account of results and data is missing or critically insufficient.
  1. Discussion/Reflection
The contribution
discusses results or
experiences in
relation to the question
or problem formulation.
Critical connections or
recommendations for
the individual study or
project are made via
reflections that also
contribute to the
general perspective of EE/ESD.

 

The contribution contains discussion or reflection relative the question or problem formulation. The results or experiences are not analysed or discussed in relation to the question or problem formulation.
  1. Communication
The contents of the contribution
are well communicated
and audience-adapted
for accessibility in
terms of language as
well as structure.
The argumentation is
convincing and adapted
in order not to exclude relevant groups.
The contents of the contribution are well communicated and audience-adapted for accessibility in terms of language as well as structure. The contribution fails to communicate in one or several of these areas: audience, adaptation, language, structure, referencing.