Review Process
The Earth System Governance Project’s International Office manages the review process administratively in collaboration with the Conference Organizing Committee, with support from the International Review Panel. A total of 542 submissions were received across all categories, including individual papers, full panels, and innovative sessions.
Double-anonymous review process
All formally correct submissions were anonymized and assigned randomly to two reviewers in a double-anonymous process. This means that the authors of the abstracts do not know which reviewers evaluate their submission, and reviewers do not know the identity of the author(s).
Review criteria
Reviewers evaluated the assigned abstracts according to three criteria, each on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 = lowest, 5 = highest):
- General quality assessment (50% of the score),
- Degree of thematic fit (25%), and
- Degree of innovativeness and novelty (25%)
Reviewers also provided qualitative comments on the abstracts and indicated their familiarity with the topic based on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = completely new to the reviewer, 10 = the topic is within their area of expertise). The score from the reviewer with higher topic familiarity was given greater weight in the final calculation.
Based on the scores provided by the two reviewers, an average score was calculated and submissions were ranked accordingly.
Final selection
The Conference Organizing Committee, composed of senior researchers at the University of Bath (the conference host) who are affiliated with the ESG Research Centre Bath, reviewed the reviewers’ evaluations and made the final decisions.
Decisions were based on the reviewers’ assessments, the Committee’s own judgement, the overall cut-off score and the conference capacity (up to 500 people).
Cut-off scores
Individual papers and full panels
- The cut-off score was 3.8 out of 5.
- Individual papers which were also submitted as part of accepted full panels were not considered separately and were therefore rejected to avoid duplication.
- A very small number of papers received a score of 3.8 or higher but were nevertheless not accepted, partly because each participant may present no more than two papers and partly based on the careful evaluation of the peer reviewers and the Conference Organizing Committee.
Innovative sessions
- The cut-off score was 3.5 out of 5.
- Additional consideration was given to the degree of innovativeness and novelty, the number of confirmed contributors, as well as the presence of similar proposed sessions.
International Review Panel
We would like to thank members of the International Review Panel for their support during the review process. The panel was composed of 72 senior scholars from the Earth System Governance network, including members of the Scientific Steering Committee, Lead Faculty, Senior Research Fellows and experienced Research Fellows.
If your submission was not accepted
A rejection does not necessarily reflect the quality of your abstract or its relevance to the conference. The competition this year was strong, and the cut-off score was relatively high.
To ensure a full-capacity conference, if places become available, we may contact submissions with review scores just below the cut-off by 15 May 2026.
Questions?
Contact us at ipo@earthsystemgovernance.org