The Technical Program Chair oversees the review process for papers, presentations, and posters. Technical Track Co-Chairs are responsible for overseeing the submissions and reviewers within their technical track.
Multiple reviewers are assigned to each submission. Reviewer comments are sent to the Track Co-Chair for final review before notifying authors. All reviewer information is kept confidential.
All submissions will undergo a peer-review process, receive a minimum of 2 reviews per submission, and be reviewed against the five criteria below:
- Relevance – Paper should share insight, experiences and lessons learned through the lens of pilot, implementation, deployment, development or research projects leveraging technology for ICT4D, Sustainable Development and Humanitarian Technology related activities. Content should be sufficiently relevant to the track selected. The submission should clearly outline how societal and ethical implications of technology are appropriately addressed in the context of the specific intervention.
- Validity – Quality of argument and interpretation is well-structured, logical, appropriate, and well-grounded in relevant theory as well as within the actual experiences and realities of humanitarian practices. Provides sufficient analysis of results and contextualises the work with published literature.
- Contribution – Contribution to the body of knowledge related to the use of technology for ICT4D, Sustainable Development and Humanitarian purposes. Presents timely, novel and original knowledge of ideas, information, problems, interpretation or solutions in relation to existing practice (programs, use and ways of working) and academic research (theory, techniques, paradigms). Provides potential for positively impacting practice and research (including design, engineering, use or understanding). Results should be innovative within the context of the intervention and the participating community.
- Methodological Rigor – Is the research design of high quality, and are the proposed methods (data collection, sampling, data analysis) appropriate with a clear description of data/findings, quality and appropriateness of analysis? Is there a clear evaluation of consequences of interventions, and strengths and limitations of the study to support replication and external validation?
- Clarify and Accessibility – Paper should be written in easy to understand English, have a short descriptive title, clear abstract and objectives, be well-structured, apply formatting and style guidelines, clearly explain any technical language or abbreviations, and present tables and graphics that add value. It should be of appropriate length, with a strong conclusion presenting a synthesis of the insight shared, with actionable recommendations and proposed next steps.
Contact Review Team
If you have questions about the review process or would like to be a reviewer, please contact the Program Chair using the form below.