In order to evenly distribute responsibility for reviewing—and to ensure we have enough reviewers—there is an expectation that at least one author from each proposal will review three other proposals.
- Proposals where the entire author team is “new to RUME” are exempted from this requirement. An author is “new to RUME” if they are an undergraduate student, a graduate student who has only attended one RUME conference, or a faculty member or postdoc who has not previously published mathematics
- In the submission process, you will be able to indicate which author(s) will serve as reviewers or if the entire author team is new to RUME. If a person is listed as an author on multiple submissions, they may be asked to review more than three proposals.
Proposal Review Process
All proposals will be reviewed by at least 2 reviewers. Acceptance and declination decisions for each proposal will be made by the RUME Conference Planning Committee and will be based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
Proposal Review Process for Contributed Report and Preliminary Report proposals. Proposal reviewers will be asked to rate proposals according to the following considerations:
- Does the proposal explore a significant issue/question relevant to RUME?
- How does it relate to prior research on related topics/issues?
- Is the theoretical perspective clearly outlined?
- Is there an appropriate choice of research methodology?
- Is it clear what the conclusions/main claims are?
- Are those supported by data?
- Does the research contribute to teaching practice/theory development?
Proposal review process for Theoretical Reports. Proposal reviewers will be asked to rate proposals according to the following considerations:
- The authors clearly present the theoretical perspective. In other words, one can easily answer the question, “What is this theory about?”
- This theoretical perspective is relevant to research conducted by the RUME community.
- The proposal situates the theoretical perspective within existing research and literature or establishes a need for the proposed theory.
- The main claims or conclusions are clear and are reasonably supported.
- The theoretical perspective is sufficiently distinguished from other theoretical perspectives. In other words, it is made clear why other theoretical perspectives do not adequately account for the phenomenon in question.
- The theoretical perspective is likely to have important practical applications or to open new areas of research.