All EIBA members, authors of papers and conference participants are invited to serve as reviewers for the conference. They should expect to receive 2 or 3 papers by early May 2015 and to return their reviews by June 15, 2015.
Please note that ALL THE AUTHORS of the papers submitted to the conference are expected to PERFORM REVIEWS.
Being a reviewer is a very important and critical role to play and we invite you to actively participate in the 2015 program. The Best Reviewers will be nominated by Track Chairs and recognized at the conference.
We do hope that you will find the time to assist us with this most important review process.
To know about the conference tracks, click here
To volunteer as a reviewer, please click here
INSTRUCTIONS TO REVIEWERS
- Review Process:
This is a very important process. The conference would not be possible without the careful work of reviewers.
ALL THE AUTHORS of the papers submitted to the conference are expected to PERFORM REVIEWS.
Track Chairs will nominate the Best Reviewers for their track. The winner of the award is recognized with a certificate and in the Conference Program.
The review process for the conference is a double-blind one, which aims at advancing research in the field of International Business. We welcome conceptual, methodological, and empirical papers that provide novel insights to the conference delegates. In terms of empirical studies, we are open to qualitative and quantitative submissions. Our aim is to put together a rigorous academic conference, which will be of interest to many scholars. However, our success depends on your contribution as a Reviewer.
- Deadline
The deadline for reviews – JUNE 12, 2015 – is critical. Our schedule is extremely tight, especially this year when we need to allow time for European participants to buy their airline tickets and reserve their hotels early on, in order to enjoy discounts.
Please send your review as soon as possible. If you cannot respond within the stated time period, immediately notify the Track Chair so that s/he can reassign the paper to another reviewer.
- Review Suggestions
Be precise, constructive, and provide sufficient detail: It is important that authors learn from the reviews. If you think the paper should be accepted for a different type of session or rejected, make sure to tell the author how the paper could be improved. If the judgment is positive, identify the strengths of a manuscript. Try to judge the paper on how well it stimulates thinking and discussion. Be consistent: a good comment corresponds to a good mark and vice versa.
Please use a friendly tone. Remember, these are all your colleagues.
Also, please keep in mind that these are submissions to a conference, not a journal, so please review them accordingly, by conserving that they are all unfinished work which shall benefit from constructive feedback. This means that your reviews need not be as long and detailed as journal reviews, and your reviews should take into account the somewhat more lenient acceptance rates at conferences.
In case you suspect plagiarism or fraud, please consult the Track Chair. In case you feel that you either recognize the author or have another conflict of interest, please request not to review the manuscript.
In terms of content of the paper, we would particularly like you to pay attention to the following points:
- Fit to the conference (theme): Do you think the paper develops/challenges/extends knowledge in the field of International Business? Does it discuss topics which are related to the conference theme?
- Theory: Does the study further inform or improve our understanding? How? Are the key concepts clearly defined?
- Literature review: Does the paper cite appropriate literature and build on existing work on the topic? If not, can you offer important references that the author has missed? Are the references cited up-to-date?
- Research design and methods (if applicable): Is the research process well described? Is the chosen method appropriate for the research question? Are the measures used well developed and defended? Is the data sufficient for answering the research question and methods of analysis? Are aspects of reliability and validity addressed appropriately?
- Analysis and findings (if applicable): Were the data appropriately analyzed? Are the findings in line with the literature and theoretical framework presented?
- Contribution: Does the paper make a meaningful contribution to our current understanding of the topic? Does it provide new and meaningful insights?
- Structure: Is the length of the paper appropriate? Does the manuscript have a logical flow? Has the author followed the prescribed layout and formatting instructions of the conference? Do the title and abstract adequately reflect the content of the article?
- Clarity of presentation: Was the paper easy to read? Did it have a logical flow? Was the (English) language understandable and grammatically correct? Were there any spelling errors or typos, missing bibliographic information, poorly-constructed tables and figures, etc.?
Do not tell the authors what your recommendation (accept, reject) is. This is a decision to be taken by the Track Chair, based on the reviewers’ recommendations to her/him and on her/his own assessment.
- Competitive, Interactive and Poster Sessions
The following table should help you perform your reviews:
| Type of Session | Type of Paper | Benefits for authors | Review results options |
| Competitive | The manuscript is almost ready for submission to a journal.25 pages max. double space | Reviews and comments help bring the paper to the level required by journals | -Accepted as Competitive-Accepted as Interactive-Accepted as Poster-Rejected |
| Interactive | The paper is in its initial stages. Yet, the method part is almost complete.15 pages max. double space | Comments from reviewers, session chair and participants help refine the paper. | -Accepted as Interactive-Accepted as Poster-Rejected |
| Poster | Research project.Extended abstract,2 pages max. single space | Comments from session chair and participants help validate the research project and/or offer new directions | -Accepted as Poster-Rejected |
Only more mature and developed papers should be recommended for “Competitive” sessions.
Papers that are more work-in-progress should be recommended t for Interactive sessions.
Research projects should be recommended for “Poster” sessions.
SPECIAL CALL FOR INTERACTIVE SESSION CHAIRS AND POSTER SESSION CHAIRS
Given EIBA goals to provide a favorable environment to junior scholars and Ph.D. candidates, we want to give a special emphasis to the interactive sessions and poster sessions.
Interactive sessions require a delicate and important performance of the session chair as s/he needs to enliven and coordinate the session. The session chair is expected to lead the substantive debate and her/his guidance is essential to secure a beneficial participation to all authors.
Since chairing interactive sessions is such an important role, we need experienced scholars that will be able to stimulate authors and audience to discuss and bring about suggestions on how to refine the papers. Besides, the session chair has to be the time keeper and make sure that all authors are granted time equitably.
Poster session chairs also play a crucial role. Each chair will be assigned to a limited number of posters, which shall be close to her/his areas of expertise. S/He will provide comments to authors during lunchtime, when posters will be on display for other participants to comment on and discuss as well.
Poster sessions chairs are performing a delicate task as they help participants to validate research projects.
For all the above reasons, only experienced scholars can assume the role of session chairs in interactive and poster sessions. We would appreciate if they could volunteer for these important duties.
Volunteer to be a session chair