Reviewer Guidelines

 

To ensure the highest academic and professional standards for EMCIS conference, we ask our reviewers to evaluate submissions based on innovation, technical rigor, and practical relevance. Each proposal should be assessed on its potential to contribute to the field, particularly regarding its alignment with EMCIS tracks and conference theme. We value constructive feedback that helps authors refine their work, so please ensure your comments are specific, professional, and actionable.

EMCIS Review Criteria

  1. Originality:
  • Does the work offer new insights, methodologies, or applications within information systems?
  • Does the paper contain information adequate to justify the inclusion of this paper in the conference proceedings?
  1. Clarity and Structure:
  • Is the paper clearly written and logically structured? Is it well-organized, with clear objectives and a logical flow of arguments?
  • Does it present its argument effectively and use technical language appropriate to the field?
  • Has sufficient attention been given to clarity and readability, including sentence structure, use of jargon, and appropriate explanation of acronyms?
  1. Relationship to Literature:
  • Does the article demonstrate a solid understanding of the relevant literature in the field?
  • Does it cite an appropriate and sufficiently broad range of sources?
  • Are any key or influential works in the field missing or overlooked?

4. Conceptualisation:

  • Is the paper grounded in an appropriate theoretical or conceptual framework?
  • Are these theories or concepts applied effectively to support the argument?
  1. Research Methodology:
  • Is the choice of research method justified based on the research goals?
  • Are the data collection and analysis procedures described in sufficient detail to allow for replicability?
  • For quantitative studies, are the statistical tests appropriate?
  • For qualitative work, is there a clear thematic or content analysis framework?
  • Does the data used directly address the variables or phenomena under investigation?
  1. Data analysis:
  • Is the data presented clearly, accurately, and in a well-organised manner (e.g. tables, figures, and descriptions)?
  • Are the analytical methods appropriate for the data and research conceptualisation?
  • Is the analysis conducted rigorously and interpreted correctly, with results clearly linked to the study’s aims?
  1. Conclusions
  • Do the conclusions clearly synthesise the key findings and arguments presented in the paper?
  • Are the conclusions well aligned with the data, analysis, and discussion?
  • Do they effectively reflect the study’s aims and contributions without overstating the results?
  1. Implications (Research and practice):
  • Does the paper clearly explain the implications for practice and/or directions for future research?
  • Are these implications logically connected to, and consistent with, the study’s findings and conclusions?