All submissions except symposia reviewing guidelines

These notes describe both how to use the platform to access the submissions allocated to you for review as well
as the review criteria developed for EAWOP 2022 submissions. If you have reviewed for EAWOP before, please note that this is a new platform and there have been some changes to the review criteria.


To begin with, please read the submission guidelines prior to starting any reviews.

You can access these here.


Given that Submissions were extended due to exceptional circumstances, it is even more important than usual that Reviewers meet the deadlines of 21 days from receipt of the allocation email to completion of the reviewing process.


Should you anticipate any difficulty in reviewing on time, please immediately inform us at [email protected] in order for us to reallocate your

incomplete reviews.


This year we are accepting 15-minute Oral Presentations where the Abstract has a 750-word limit as well as 7-minute Science papers and Posters, each with a 500-word limit. Criteria for each of these are shown below in these guidelines.


You will be sent (or may already have been sent) an email with a link for you to access your allocated submissions.

This email will be from:
EAWOP Congress 22 | Submissions [email protected]
with the subject line
Invitation to review abstract for EAWOP 2022 | All Submissions except Symposia”.



Please note: If you are also assigned one or more symposia submissions, you will be sent a different link to review those.


Once you have clicked on the link in the email you will arrive at the page below. You will need to click “Log In” in the top right-hand corner.



IMPORTANT: You will need to use the email address that the reviewer email was sent to in order to login to the system and access your reviews.


* If have already made a submission that is NOT a symposium using this email address, you will just need to enter your password.


If you have not submitted to this site, under this email address, you will need to click “Need to create an account?”, complete the required details and then press “Create”.



Once you are logged in, you will need to click on “My Reviews” which will lead you to your assigned submissions for review:



Here you will see all the submissions that you have been allocated. You have the option to filter by “Topic” or by “Status” (reviewed, not reviewed). Once you are ready to begin reviewing, click on “Review”.


Once you have clicked on “Review” you will see the symposium details at the top of the screen under “The Submission”.


  • We have tried to allocate submissions according to your stated areas of interest but occasionally this has not been possible.  If you feel you cannot review the symposium, please contact us at [email protected] as soon as possible.
  • If you feel you have a conflict of interest (e.g., one of the authors is/was a close colleague) which makes it inappropriate for you to review the submission please contact us at [email protected] as soon as possible.



Oral presentations are expected to deliver innovative research or practice projects with a presentation time of 15 minutes per contribution including three minutes for questions and discussion. Submissions are made in the form of a 750-word Abstract along with required personal details.


7-minute Science presentations are short oral papers presenting innovative research or practice where the presentation time is 7-minutes per contribution and the aim is to explain the key points as if to an intelligent lay audience, thus giving a short and precise coverage of a topic. They are often very high energy and fun sessions. Abstracts have a 500-word limit.


Posters demonstrate research or innovative practice using 300 to 500 words plus supporting graphics. Abstracts have a 500-word limit.


  1. Research goals and why the work was worth doing

  2. Theoretical background

  3. Design/Methodology/Approach/Intervention

  4. Results obtained or expected (if not available, it must be made clear when they will be)

  5. Limitations

  6. Research/Practical Implications

  7. Originality/Value



A. You are not asked to provide a separate rating for each of the criteria above, but should make a single rating of the submission with regard to its suitability for a major International Congress


B. Please consider if the submission’s main focus is Science, Practice or an equal mixture when evaluating the various criteria


C. As stated in the table, if you rate anything as a 3, 2 or 1, you are asked to provide short notes to explain why. This is very important as we have to provide suitable feedback to submitters. We do not expect you to write at length, but around 40 to 100 words would be a reasonable guide and the points should relate to the provided criteria and points to look out for. Think about what you would like to receive in terms of feedback if this was your paper.


D. You are also asked to recommend any changes that you think the author/s could make to improve their submission which could include content change, clarity of expression or grammar. These are encouraged no matter what the rating of the submission.


E. You may think the submission would better suit a different type of presentation, in which case please indicate in the text box which you would recommend as a better fit by typing ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’:
A. Oral Paper (12 minutes) B. 7-minute Science paper C. Poster


Scale Point

Points to look out for 



Very clear aims.

Meets all the above criteria that are relevant to the type of submission.

Significant contribution to WOP theory, scientific knowledge and/or Significant impact on WOP practice

May energise future research or practice in the area.

Very robust theoretical underpinning, methodology and findings.

Extremely relevant or interesting topic area for WOP audience of academics and/or practitioners

Very well written and coherent.

Contains new or innovative material or ideas.

Comments for author(s) are not required but are encouraged.


Clear aims.

Meets most of the above criteria.

Evidence of contribution to WOP theory/scientific knowledge/practice. Robust theoretical underpinning, methodology, design and findings. Interesting topic area / content for WOP audience.

Well written and coherent.

Interesting format.

Comments for author(s) are not required but are encouraged.


Just above standard

Aims are fairly clear.

Minor issues to be addressed to meet basic criteria.

Some contribution to WOP theory, scientific knowledge and/or practice.

Sufficient theoretical underpinning, appropriate design, methodology and findings. Reasonably coherent and well written.

Appears accurate/valid.

Reviewers must include comments for author(s) explaining why they have considered the submission “Just above standard”.


Just below standard

Unclear aims.

Issues identified which need to be addressed in the submission to meet basic criteria. Minimal contribution to WOP theory, scientific knowledge and/or practice. Questionable theory, design/methodology or findings.

Poorly written.

Questionable accuracy of content.

Inadequate statistical analysis.

Has some commercial undertones without any strongly balancing theoretical or practical value.

Reviewers must include comments for author(s) explaining why they have considered the submission “Just below standard”


Well below standard

Very unclear aims.

Does not meet basic criteria.

No obvious contribution to WOP theory, scientific knowledge and/or practice. Unsound or inappropriate theory, design, methodology or findings.

Complete lack of coherence/major errors in writing.

Major inaccuracies in content.

Clear commercial intent without any strongly balancing theoretical or practical value. Unethical in some way.

Reviewers must include comments for author(s) explaining why they have considered the submission “Well below standard”


All Submissions except Symposia Review Site


A sample of what you see when you select a submission for review is shown below:



Submission Ratings

Scrolling further down reveals the rating procedure:



Best Paper and Best Poster
For Oral paper and Poster submissions, Reviewers are asked to make recommendations for inclusion in the shortlist for Best Paper or Best Poster. So, if you feel that a particular submission should be considered, please note this in the last text box by typing ‘Best’. You can also add a comment to the judging panel explaining your recommendation.



Once you are happy that you have completed all the questions, click “Submit


Once you have submitted your review, you will be taken back to the “My Reviews” page where you will now see a rating next to the paper that you have reviewed.



You have the option to go in and edit your scores/comments until your 3-week review period is over.  At this point, any further amends will not be taken into consideration. 


You will need to complete STEP 5 for each of the submissions you have been allocated.


Once all of your reviews have been submitted and the 3-week reviewing period has finished, your marks and comments will be passed to the Programme Committee who will be in touch should there be any queries. If there are none, you will receive an email from [email protected] thanking you for participating in the process. 


Who should you contact for assistance? 

For any enquiry about using the online system, or the reviewing process itself, please contact [email protected].


Thank you 

The Programme Committee thanks you for volunteering your time to review for the 2022 EAWOP Congress.