The TUM Multidisciplinary Conference Innovation Week (TMDCIW) employs a double-blind peer review system, where each submitted abstract is evaluated by at least two reviewers. Upon submission, abstracts undergo an initial in-house review to ensure adherence to academic standards and to filter out incomplete, out-of-scope, or poorly written submissions. Abstracts passing this screening are then assigned to two reviewers via the online system. Reviewers are tasked with reading and assessing the abstracts, grading them on a scale of 1 to 100 based on predefined assessment categories.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
100 \u2013 Excellent<\/p>\n\n\n\n
80 \u2013 Good<\/p>\n\n\n\n
60 \u2013 Average<\/p>\n\n\n\n
40 \u2013 Poor or Borderline Acceptable<\/p>\n\n\n\n
20 \u2013 Very Poor<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The scores assigned by the reviewers are combined, with abstracts needing to score 60 or above for acceptance, or 50 and above if sent to a third reviewer. Automatic acceptance occurs when both reviewers rate the abstract as “Average,” “Good,” or “Excellent.” Conversely, automatic rejection occurs if both reviewers rate the abstract as “Very Poor” or “Reject.” If the abstract receives a “Poor\/Borderline Acceptable” rating from both reviewers, it is sent to a third reviewer. The decision is then based on the third reviewer’s assessment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Authors typically receive notification of acceptance or rejection within four weeks of abstract submission. Accepted authors are notified via email and receive an official letter of acceptance in PDF format.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reviewers are guided by specific assessment criteria when evaluating abstracts, including the quality of presentation, research design, conclusions, originality, and impact. These criteria ensure a thorough evaluation and consideration of various aspects of the abstracts, ultimately contributing to the selection process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Is the abstract clearly written?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Can the study aims, methods, and findings be easily understood?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Is the study design clearly described?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are sampling procedures adequately explained, including inclusion and exclusion criteria?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Is there potential selection bias?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are the measures reliable and valid?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are possible confounding factors addressed?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are the statistical analyses appropriate for the study design?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are the conclusions clearly stated?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– How well are the conclusions supported by the data?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are the conclusions overstated in relation to the results?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Can the abstract be assessed for novel concepts or approaches?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Does the study challenge existing paradigms or involve the development of new methodologies?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Does the new study build upon previous work?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Does it add genuinely new information to current knowledge or strengthen previous findings?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Does the abstract address an important issue?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– How does the study advance scientific knowledge?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– What effect do the results have on the concepts or methods driving progress in the field?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
– Are the results and conclusions strong enough to influence the behavior of researchers, educators, and policymakers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Welcome to the abstract review process for TMDCIW conferences. Below, you will find helpful information on how to review abstracts and answer common questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1. Why have I been assigned this abstract?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You have been selected based on your qualifications and expertise. You may be the author of an accepted abstract or a volunteer who has offered to review submissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 2. How do I review an abstract?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n – Log into the review system with your email address and chosen password.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – Select the abstract from your login menu and take your time to read it thoroughly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – Consider factors such as academic rigor, clarity, relevance, and precision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – Grade the abstract and provide comments and recommendations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n – Click “Submit” to complete your review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3. How long do I have to review an abstract?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n You have 45 minutes to complete each review once you’ve selected an abstract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4. How can I decline to review an abstract?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If you feel you are not the appropriate reviewer for an abstract, click “Return to the main menu without saving” to select a different one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5. How can I declare a conflict of interest?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n If you believe there may be a conflict of interest, such as a personal connection with the author, click “Return to the main menu without saving” to choose another abstract.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 6. Am I required to leave comments?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Yes, leaving comments is mandatory. Comments should be constructive and at least 30 characters long. Provide feedback within the grading categories and offer constructive criticism when necessary (up to 250 words).<\/p>\n\n\n\n 7. Will my comments be passed on to the author(s)?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Reviewer comments are not automatically shared with authors, except in cases where authors may need feedback for funding purposes. Your anonymity as a reviewer will always be maintained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8. Can I contact the author directly?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Please refrain from contacting authors directly or revealing your identity to them. This helps prevent potential conflicts of interest and maintains the integrity of the review process.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The TUM Multidisciplinary Conference Innovation Week (TMDCIW) employs a double-blind peer review system, where each submitted abstract is evaluated by at least two reviewers. Upon […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-367","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/367","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=367"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/367\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":648,"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/pages\/367\/revisions\/648"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pri.tum.ac.ke\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=367"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}