Review Criteria

Research and Brief Research Report Review Criteria
Each Research Report or Brief Research Report will be assigned to three reviewers who will make a recommendation to the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) about whether a proposal should be Accepted, Rejected, or Accepted in an alternate format. Note that a research report or brief research report can be 'Accepted in an Alternative Format' - if you choose this option, please leave a brief comment explaining which format you choose. The reviewer guidelines for making these recommendations provide separate criteria for empirical and theoretical proposals. An empirical proposal is one that presents a study based in data and draws conclusions from a principled analysis of that data. It emphasizes conclusions and provides answers to research questions. A theoretical proposal is one whose main thrust is to give principled analyses of issues. It emphasizes explanation and connections and provides coherent ways to think about issues, situations, or phenomena in mathematics education. For those who find it useful, we provide worksheets for reviewing empirical proposals and theoretical proposals.

All Research Reports and Brief Research Reports will be rated on the following criteria:

  • Choice or problem or question
  • Relationship to PMENA 2015 Theme
  • Quality of writing

Additional Criteria for Empirical Proposals:

  • Theoretical Framework
  • Mode of Inquiry
  • Rigor of Analysis
  • Interpretation

Additional Criteria for Theoretical Proposals:

  • Argument
  • Implications

Poster Review Criteria
Reviewers will be asked to rate each poster proposal on the following criteria:

  • Importance of Issue
  • Relationship to PMENA 2015 Conference Theme
  • Response to the Issue
  • Quality of Writing

For those who find it useful, we provide a worksheet for reviewing poster proposals.

Working Group Review Criteria
Reviewers will be asked to rate each working group proposal on the following criteria:

  • Choice of Issue
  • Active Engagement of Participants
  • Sustainability
  • Results of Prior Work (for returning working groups only)
  • Quality of Writing

For those who find it useful, we provide a worksheet for reviewing working group proposals.