Template
Conference review scoring rubric
What is a conference review scoring rubric?
A conference review scoring rubric is the shared scale reviewers use to score each abstract: a small set of criteria such as scientific quality, originality, relevance and methodology, each rated from 1 to 5 with a written description of every level, plus an overall recommendation — so that a 4 from one reviewer means the same as a 4 from another.
Four criteria, each scored from 1 to 5, with a sentence describing every score. The criteria are WebMobi’s defaults for peer review; the descriptions are there so that reviewers score the same thing the same way.
Download the template
- Rubric and review formWord (.docx)Download ↓
- Rubric and review formMarkdown (.md)Download ↓
- Rubric as a tableCSV (.csv)Download ↓
Free to use and adapt. Would rather not build it by hand? Create this in WebMobi →
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. |
The overall recommendation
- 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.
Keep the recommendation separate from the scores. A reviewer can score an abstract 3 on every criterion and still recommend acceptance for a poster; the committee needs both signals.
What the review form asks
- The submission’s reference.
- A score from 1 to 5 for each criterion.
- The overall recommendation.
- Comments to the authors — written to be passed on.
- Confidential comments to the committee.
- A conflict-of-interest declaration.
Calibrate before anyone scores for real
Before review opens, ask a few reviewers to score the same two or three abstracts and compare. Where scores differ by more than a point, the description of that level is doing too little work — rewrite it. Ten minutes of calibration saves the committee an afternoon of reconciling scores that meant different things.
Decide in advance whether the criteria carry equal weight. If relevance to the conference matters more than originality for your meeting, say so to reviewers and to the committee before scores exist.
Using the rubric in WebMobi
WebMobi’s peer review starts with these four criteria, each scored 1 to 5; you can rename them or use up to ten of your own. Reviewers score every criterion, give a recommendation and write separate comments to authors and to the committee. The decisions screen shows each criterion’s average next to the overall average. See conference peer review software and how to organize peer review.
Frequently asked questions
Should the overall score be the average of the criteria?
It can be, if the criteria carry equal weight. The average read together with the recommendation and the spread between reviewers tells the committee more than the average alone.
Why a 1 to 5 scale?
Five levels are enough to separate strong from weak work and few enough that each level can be described in a sentence. It is also the scale WebMobi’s review form uses.
Can we change the criteria?
Yes. Rename these four or replace them — WebMobi accepts up to ten criteria per event.
Your conference starts with one sentence.
Describe your conference in a sentence. AI proposes the event and its website, and your workspace suggests the academic modules to switch on. Nothing is public until you publish.
Create your academic event →