# Review scoring rubric

Score each criterion from 1 to 5 using the descriptions below, then give an overall recommendation.

## Scientific quality

Is the work sound, and do the results support the conclusions?

| Score | Description |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | Serious flaws; the conclusions do not follow from the work. |
| 2 | Significant weaknesses that put the conclusions in doubt. |
| 3 | Sound overall, with weaknesses that limit the conclusions. |
| 4 | Well designed and carried out; minor issues only. |
| 5 | Rigorous; the conclusions are fully supported. |

## Originality

What does this add to what is already known?

| Score | Description |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | Repeats known work with no new contribution. |
| 2 | A minor variation on known work. |
| 3 | Some new elements of interest. |
| 4 | A clear new contribution. |
| 5 | Highly original; likely to change thinking or practice. |

## Relevance

How well does it fit the conference and its audience?

| Score | Description |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | Outside the scope of the conference. |
| 2 | Marginal to the scope. |
| 3 | Relevant to its track. |
| 4 | Clearly relevant and of interest to the track’s audience. |
| 5 | Central to the conference’s themes and of broad interest. |

## Methodology

Are the methods appropriate and clearly described?

| Score | Description |
| --- | --- |
| 1 | Methods missing or inappropriate. |
| 2 | Methods unclear or weak. |
| 3 | Appropriate, but incompletely described. |
| 4 | Appropriate and clearly described. |
| 5 | Exemplary; the approach could be repeated from the description. |

## Overall recommendation

| Recommendation | Use when |
| --- | --- |
| Accept | The work meets the conference’s standard as submitted. |
| Request revision | The work could be accepted if specific, stated issues are addressed. |
| Reject | The work does not meet the standard, or falls outside the scope. |

## Review form

Submission reference:

_______________________________________________

Scientific quality (1–5):

_______________________________________________

Originality (1–5):

_______________________________________________

Relevance (1–5):

_______________________________________________

Methodology (1–5):

_______________________________________________

Recommendation (Accept / Request revision / Reject):

_______________________________________________

Comments to the authors:

_______________________________________________

Confidential comments to the committee:

_______________________________________________

Conflict of interest: I have no conflict of interest with this submission / I have a conflict and decline this review.

From WebMobi — https://www.webmobi.com/solutions/academic-conferences