Terms and conditions of abstract revision

A. Due to the high demand for presentations at the last conference, participants can submit only ONE abstract as a first author for a single presentation and as part of ONE joint presentation in a panel.

B. Submissions which exceed required word count (in the title and/or abstract) will not be accepted for revision.
C. All abstracts should clearly state if they are talk or poster format.
D. Presentations based on opinions, experiences and/or practices (which are not informed by the collection/generation of evidence) will not be accepted for revision
E. Do not mention your institution or yourself in the abstract in order to ensure the blind review process (see point F below)

F. RICELT uses a blind peer review process for abstract selection. A blind peer review involves a revision committee composed of peers who review and evaluate the abstracts following the criteria that have been publicly shared with all RICELT members. The names of authors and their institutions are hidden from reviewers and names of reviewers are hidden from authors, therefore the decision is purely based on the known criteria.

Rubric

As part of our transparency policy, the selection process will be done through a blind peer review process. Two reviewers will read each abstract.

The following rubric will be used at this stage. You can use this table to make sure your abstract contains all the elements required.

TITLE:

Context of the study
The study was conducted in Chile and in the field of ELT
(if the study was not carried out in the Chilean context, the abstract must be dismissed and not reviewed)
Y/N

Word Limit / 2 marks

1.The abstract has less than 200 words
2. The abstract complies with word limit (10% +/-)

Objectives or Purpose of the study / 5 marks
1. The objective is not stated in the abstract
2. The objective is not explicitly stated, but the main purpose of the study is somewhat mentioned.
3. The objective is stated, but it is not clear enough
4. The objective is stated, but its relevance to the Chilean context is unclear.
5. The objective is clearly stated and relevant to the Chilean context and ELT

Research methodology (RM)
(type of research design, participants, data collection, data analysis) / 5 marks
1. The RM is not stated in the abstract or the study is clearly not based on empirical data
2. The RM is not fully stated, as it lacks too many details to understand how the study was carried out.
3. The RM is stated, but it is missing more than 2 elements of a complete methodology description.
4. The RM is stated, but it is missing 1-2 elements of a complete methodology description (see elements listed in the full score).
5. The RM is clear and complete: type of research, clear context, participants, data collection and analysis procedures are consistent with the objective and relevant to the study.

Results or Preliminary findings / 3 marks
1.Results are not stated in the abstract
2.Results are somehow stated, but they are not related to the objective of the study or based on empirical data
3. Results are clearly stated and connected to the objectives.

Conclusions (Implications or Contribution to ELT in the Chilean context) / 3 marks
1. Conclusions, implications or contribution are not stated in the abstract
2. Conclusions, implications or contribution are stated in the abstract, but somehow related to the objectives
3. Conclusions, implications or contributions are clearly stated and related to the objectives of the study

Quality of writing (clarity, organization, professional style) / 3 marks
1. Writing is unclear, disorganised, and grammar-related issues do not allow the reviewer to understand the abstract
2. Writing is somehow clear and organised with few grammatical errors. Meaning is understood but not fully
3. Writing is clear, academic, and well organised

TOTAL: 21 marks

Comments and suggestions: