Guide for Paper Reviewers

We would be grateful for a quick turnaround of papers. Please aim for no more than three weeks from access to a paper, to completion of your review process. As this process occurs close to Christmas we understand that there may be some delays – but please let the editor know if you cannot meet deadlines, or have other problems with reviewing a paper.

Access to your papers for review

To view the batch of the papers allocated to you for review (some may be ready before others) please follow the steps below:

• Login on the Conference Website at http://www.apen.org.au/events/2006conf/
• On the Welcome page, click on Edit Details to ensure that your Email and other details are correct
• Return to the Welcome page and click on Author Gateway for the 2006 International Conference
• Click on My Reviews to gain access to the papers that are ready for you to review at this stage
• Download a paper to your computer to make edits and comments, and then upload the new version to the website (see Review Process below) 

If you are also an author at this conference, you would submit your paper through My Papers, where you would see your previous versions of abstract and papers listed. But most reviewers will only have access to their batch of papers for review under My Reviews.

The Review Process

We are using a ‘single blind’ review process, so your name will not be revealed to authors in connection with any particular paper.  The authors' deadline for uploading papers is 30 November 2005 but some papers will be ready for review before then. When an author uploads a paper to the website, it is given a unique ID number, which applies to the abstract and first and subsequent versions of the paper. All versions are stored in the database under that document ID.

First the paper is edited technically by The Regional Institute to ensure that it complies with formatting requirements set out in the Template for authors. After this you will be advised by email that the paper is ready for you to review. You need to access it via the website, as outlined above under Access to Papers above.

For each paper assigned to you for review you are asked to follow these steps:
(a) Download the paper and read it on your computer
(b) Make comments (Insert / Comment) and edits in Track Changes on the paper for the author
     [To make your Track Changes anonymous - see instructions below.]
(c) Complete the Reviewer’s Assessment Sheet [RightClick to Download] using a filename showing author and paper ID (eg. Assess_Smithg_4196)
(d) To upload the paper with your comments and Track Changes, Login to the website and enter the Author Gateway and click on My Reviews. 
     Then click on the appropriate paper title and then Browse for the ammended file on your computer.
(e) Make a recommendation to the editor in the drop-down menu - i.e, Approve, Minor changes, Major changes, Reject
(f)  Make general comments for the editor in the box for the editor on the current state of this version of the paper. and click on SUBMIT to upload 
(g) Later, after all changes have been made and you have 'Approved' the paper, send a copy of the completed copy of the Assessment Sheet to the editor.

The recommendation (e) and general comments (f) will only be available to the Editor/ Assistant Editor, who will be advised automatically by email that the review is done and uploaded. The reviewer’s name will be hidden from the authors.  Please keep a hard copy of the Reviewer's Assessment Sheet for each paper (see Reviewers Guidelines below).    

The Editors will make the final decision on acceptability of each paper, after your Approval on the website. The Editor will advise the author that the paper has been reviewed and is ready for their editing, monitor the author’s responses, and drive the process until the paper is deemed satisfactory (or rejected for the Proceedings - something which we hope does not happen often). Reviewers are asked to be constructive in assisting authors to reach acceptable standards for the Proceedings.

Instructions on remaining anonymous when using track-changes in Word

1. From the File menu choose Properties and in the Summary tab, remove contact details. Click OK
2. From the Tools menu choose Options and in the User Information tab, change your name to "Reviewer" so that track changes do not reveal your identity.

Reviewers Guidelines and Criteria for Paper Assessment

• The criteria for use in reviewing papers listed in the Reviewer’s Assessment Sheet (Table 1) are intended to provide a sound structure for the review process and also evidence of proper review - to satisfy the DEST requirements for refereed proceedings. You are asked to keep a copy of the completed Assessment Sheet for each paper – and to file this under the author’s name and paper ID on your computer system (e.g. Assess_Jonesh_4217.doc).  The completed Assessment Sheet would be expected to improve during the review process. A copy of these Assessment Sheets should be sent to the Editor after papers have been ‘Approved’ by you on the website.

Please ensure that your comments to authors on their papers clearly cover the changes needed under criteria for which the paper is rated poorly on the Assessment Sheet. In addition to the criteria listed in Table 1, please consider and take action on the following points:

• Does the paper exceed 8 pages ?
• If it exceeds the limit by more than one page, please reduce the size or ask the author to do this.
• Does the title reasonably represent the content?  If not, suggest changes or ask author to change it.

General notes on papers for conference proceedings on extension and practice change

The paper is not intended as a research paper for an academic Journal. It may be a report of research on an extension topic, or on an evaluation of a program, a review of approaches or methods, or a paper on theory of human behaviour or on possible tools or approaches for future use or consideration.

Personal views may be acceptable in papers if supported by evidence from the work or literature reported. A sound paper does not have to be based on statistical analysis, although the logic should be sound and the messages (for the profession) should be clear and concisely stated.

This is an international conference and perfect English is not essential, but meaning needs to be clear.

Instructions to authors to date

The instructions used by authors are provided on the website under Submit your Paper. http://www.apen.org.au/events/2006conf/author.htm. These include an Author Template that they were required to download and use to ensure correct formatting and some essential headings in their abstracts and papers. That template also includes an example of an abstract and a paper. In addition authors were asked to follow the Guidelines for Authors – which are based on the same criteria as the Assessment Sheet for Reviewers at the end of this document. Please read the instructions to authors on the website before reviewing your batch of papers.

Authors were asked to include in their Abstract and also under the Conclusions of their paper, the subheading: Three Key Learnings (or Three Key Issues in the case of more theoretical papers).

Although abstracts have already been submitted and accepted, authors are required to repeat their abstract at the start of their full paper. A maximum length of 8 pages has been set for all papers (not counting the abstract). There is no minimum paper length.

Contact over problems

Please notify the editor if you have queries on the Review Process, or you have major problems with papers - on johneth@unimelb.edu.au.

Forum Sponsors

RIRDC
International Speakers

NSW DPI
Gala Dinner

Australian Landcare Management Systems

GHD

EcoIntegrity
Eco-mapping worksop

The Regional Institute Ltd

Toowoomba City Council