Stage 1 ASPIRE Reviews
You will receive an invitation to review. Once you click the accept link, you'll be taken to your assignments pa
1. In the initial assignment stage, you'll only see the Title of the submission. You do not need to click the details link; no additional relevant information is provided.
2. You will have the option to either accept your assignment or to flag a conflict of interest.
We do not have a 'decline' option. Even if feel that you do not have expertise in a topic, you are still expected to review that submission. It's crucial that we have enough reviewers for each submission. If you have a serious challenge to either a specific review or the number of assignments, please reach out to your TG Program Chair.
3. Click on Submit to accept your assignments.
4. Once you have accepted, you can switch the window to see your confirmed submissions and begin your reviews.
You may have submissions to review across more than one submission type. If you see that you have confirmed or unconfirmed assignments for another submission type, please make sure you also accept and review those.
5. Once you have accepted an assignment, you can download the extended abstract file. This will be either a word doc or pdf.
The submission packet link will download the same file as a zip package and is unnecessary.
6. Once you have completed your reading of the abstract, you can click the link to begin your review.
7. The review for each submission has seven numeric evaluations and 2 comment fields.
8. "Comments for the Author": These comments are provided to the submitter. Please use the Reviewer Guide to develop a constructive set of comments.
Please use the Reviewer Guide to develop a constructive set of comments.
9. "Comments for Review Committee and Chairs": These comments are only used internally by the Technical Group Program and overall Program Chair. If you have serious concerns about a submission that would prevent it's acceptance (e.g. plagiarism), note them here.
10. "Complete Work"
○ Does this proposal represent a completed version of the research or practical contribution, sufficient for review? Note that a contribution reporting on a completed phase or section of a larger endeavor is acceptable if the phase or section are clearly identified and stand on their own.
○ Review response: Yes / No
11. "Writing Quality"
○ This criterion asks you to evaluate the clarity in communication and understandability of the proposal’s main ideas. Consider these questions as you evaluate the proposal: Is the proposal well written, with correct spelling and grammar? Does the author use the available length to effectively communicate the main ideas of the proposal? Does the proposal have a clear statement of purpose, presented in a coherent and logical manner? Are the organization and presentation format clearly explained? Does the proposal provide a sufficient overview of the topic and expected benefits to attendees?
○ Review response: 1-7 scale, 1 = Low Quality : 7 = High Quality
12. "Substance of Contribution"
○ This criterion asks you to evaluate the quality of research, including the use of appropriate methodology and/or statistical analyses and the interpretation of findings. Consider these questions as you evaluate the proposal: Does the proposal take an original or creative approach to investigate the research question(s) addressed?
○ For research proposals: Do the hypotheses pose central questions that summarize what the study is measuring? Are the chosen experimental design and methodology reasonable given the objectives of the work? Are the statistical techniques used in the analyses appropriate for the given research study? Does the interpretation of the results offer insight into the topic?
○ For practice-oriented proposals: Does the proposal emphasize how the topic relates to the actual practice of HF/E? Does the discussion sufficiently explain the practical applications and implications of the work presented?
○ For theoretical proposals: Does the proposal sufficiently explain the practical implications of the theoretical arguments presented and identify future research needed to test these hypotheses?
○ Review response: 1-7 scale, 1 = Low Quality : 7 = High Quality
13. "Title Representativeness"
○ Does the title appropriately represent the topic of the proposal?
○ Review response: Yes / No
14. "Overall Quality"
○ Please provide your overall assessment of the quality of this proposal.
○ Review response: 1-7 scale, 1 = Poor : 7 = Excellent
15. "Level of Expertise"
○ Please rate your level of expertise on this proposal’s topic. If you reviewed a submission that was outside of your area of expertise, this is how you indicate that.
○ Review response: 1 = Low Expertise : 7 = High Expertise
16. You can select to receive a copy of your review by email. They are also stored in the system.
