For questions about the review process, please contact IPO@earthsystemgovernance.org.
The Earth System Governance International Project Office manages the review process administratively in collaboration with the conference hosts and chairs, connecting submissions with an International Review Panel.
Based on the grades received for each submission by the International Review Panel, an average grade is calculated, and the abstracts are then ranked accordingly. The highest-ranked submissions are accepted for presentation, whereby the total number of presenters to be accepted is determined by the conference’s capacity (462 people). Due to many submissions, the cut-off score was higher this year.
International Review Panel
The International Review Panel comprises senior scholars in the international and interdisciplinary Earth System Governance network, including members of the Scientific Steering Committee, 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 the 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 are anonymized and randomly allocated to at least three different reviewers for the double-anonymous peer review. Reviewers 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.
For full panel proposals, all paper abstracts of the panel were evaluated in the general double-anonymous peer-review of the conference, with the possible outcome that some abstracts will be more relevant than others among the panel proposals. Rejected panels also had corresponding abstracts reviewed individually.
For those with rejected individual papers
There have been many submissions across innovative sessions, panels, and individual papers. Having a rejected paper does not necessarily reflect the quality of your abstract or its relevance to the conference.
The 2023 Radboud Conference is structured around panels with 4 presenters, rather than up to 5 in previous years, with the aim to increase the quality of discussion. There was a higher than usual rate of pre-arranged panel submissions this year, and due to the inter- and transdisciplinary theme there was a threefold increase in innovative session submissions. This year’s conference will host up to 42 innovative sessions. These panels performed very well in the review process, increasing the cut-off review score to 4. There was therefore a lower likelihood for individual papers to be accepted.
In order to ensure a full-capacity conference, we have created a waiting list. If you wish to be noted on this list, please express your interest here. We will reach out to you on July 3rd to inform you of any available capacity. Places will be prioritised based on review score.