Review Process

Due to the postponement of the Conference until 2021 due to Covid-19, the 2021 Bratislava Conference is the first Earth System Governance annual event which has held two intakes and review processes as part of the Call for Papers.

The first intake for the Bratislava Conference on Earth System Governance closed 15 January 2020. The review process started soon after and was completed on 10 March 2020. Given the postponement of the Conference until 2021, holders of accepted papers of the first intake were given the option to retain, update or withdraw their abstract for 2021.

In December 2020, a second intake of the Call for Papers opened, allowing scholars to address the moment of societal crises and turbulence in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic. The second intake closed on 21 February 2021. For the second intake, an additional review process commenced directly after the submission deadline and was finished on 8 April 2021.

Both review processes of the 2021 Bratislava Conference was managed by the Earth System Governance International Project Office. In collaboration with the Conference Chair, this office invited an International Review Panel for both rounds of review.

The International Review Panel consists of senior scholars in the international and interdisciplinary Earth System Governance network, including members of the Scientific Steering Committee, members of the Earth System Governance Lead Faculty, Senior Research Fellows and experienced Research Fellows. In addition, for each conference the International Review Panel is complemented with a number of senior researchers from the country or region where the conference is held, as well as senior researchers from around the world who hold particular expertise in the specific topic(s) of the conference. The names of the International Review Panel will be published here after completion of the review process.

The review is double anonymous. This means that the authors of the abstracts of papers submitted in response to the call for papers do not know which reviewer will review their abstract; and that reviewers do not know the author(s) of an abstract.

All formally correct abstracts will be anonymized and randomly allocated to at least four different reviewers for the double anonymous review. Reviewers will grade the abstracts assigned to them on a scale from 5 (excellent/highly appropriate for the conference) to 1 (not appropriate at all), with the option (but not requirement) of adding qualitative comments. Reviewers will be requested to aim at an average grade of about 3 for all abstracts assigned to them in order to further remove grader bias from the system.

Members of the International Review Panel can submit their own abstract to the conference. Due to the random allocation of abstracts to reviewers, it can happen that they will be assigned their own abstract or abstracts of close colleagues. In those cases and all other cases of conflicting interests, reviewers will be requested to refrain from grading and mark the abstract instead as “conflict of interest”

If an abstract receives grades from different reviewers that differ more than 2 points, an additional review will be sought (by randomly allocating the abstract to yet another member of the International Review Panel).

Based on the grades received for each abstract from the International Review Panel, an average grade for every abstract will be calculated, and the abstracts are then ranked accordingly. The best abstracts will be accepted for presentation, whereby the total number of abstracts to be accepted is determined by the capacity of the respective conference.