Review Process


Our Review Process

LHG and the organizing committee members of iPED 2023 ensures a Rigorous, high quality and impartial peer review process for all abstracts submitted to the conference. The decision to accept the abstract will be judged by a panel of expert reviewers and/or session chair and/ or the conference chair indicating whether the findings and/or conclusions are new and make useful contributions to the field.

The committee will determine if the abstract is more appropriate for oral or poster presentation. Eligibility for an oral or poster presentation will be determined by the total score (with adjustment for differential scoring behavior between referees).

The committee runs a single/double-blind peer review process for all submitted abstracts, in which the reviewer and author remain anonymous.

The following are the steps that each abstract of iPED 2023 undergoes during the process of peer review:

All submitted abstracts are reviewed by the internal editorial team to ensure compliance with the conference scope and abstracts who pass this initial screening are then assigned to the session chair/review committee for evaluation.

The session chair/review committee decides if reviews by appropriate independent experts/reviewers are needed to assess the abstract. External reviewers evaluate most proposals, but it is up to the chair of the session/review committee to determine the number of reviews required.

Once the revisions are received, the session chair/review committee decides whether to accept or reject a manuscript or request revisions from the author in response to reviewer comments. If the decision is a minor revision or a major revision, authors will have 14 days to resubmit the revised abstract. Abstracts submitted by guest speakers and/or keynote addresses will be reviewed by the conference chair.

Criteria to consider for scoring

The abstract must be reviewed according to the following criteria:

Originality of the concept / approach and level of innovation

Significance/impact/relevance to conference theme

Quality of research design / theoretical argumentation

Conclusions and interpretations of results

Presentation style: consistency and clarity of structure