Instructions for Reviewers

The goal of the EurOMA review process is to recommend (or not) the inclusion of a paper in the conference programme, based on the submitted abstract. Having considered the reviews for each abstract, it is solely up to the Conference Co-chair(s) to make the final decisions regarding each abstract as well as on the conference programme.

There are three stages to the review process as reflected on the Evaluation Form:

• The first stage evaluates the abstract according to the standard EurOMA criteria (described below) using the following scale:
  1=Poor | 2=Average | 3=Good | N/A=Not Applicable.
• The second stage is recording your comments and suggestions on the abstract. The textbox for ‘Suggestions to the Author’ enables you to provide constructive qualitative feedback to the author(s) regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the abstract. Please give specific reasons where and why the abstract is strong or weak, avoiding any unsupported criticism or commentary. The ‘Comments to the Organisers’ textbox allows you to separately and confidentially record any internal remarks related to the abstract; only the organisers will be able to see these.

The third stage is recommending whether or not the abstract should be accepted for the Conference. You may select one of the following three possibilities:

(1) The authors may be invited to submit a full paper which should carefully consider the reviewer’s feedback. Therefore, it is important that the reviewer provide clear and precise recommendations in the “Suggestions to the Author(s)” box.

(2) The main reason(s) for rejection should be briefly stated in the “Suggestions to the Author(s)” box.

Evaluating the Abstract

The objective of the Conference Abstract is to anticipate the presentation of research that may or may not be polished sufficiently for a journal publication, yet presents a potential for making a significant contribution to the Conference Theme and to the greater field of Operations Management.

Each abstract should have the following structure:

1. Purpose: Theoretical background, managerial problem and research questions, objectives and/or hypotheses.
2. Design/methodology/approach: How are the objectives achieved? Describe the main data and data sources as well as methods of data collection, analysis and validation.
3. Findings: Presentation and discussion of achieved or expected results.

4. Relevance/contribution: Highlight the achieved or expected contribution to the theory, practice, methodology and/or teaching of OM.

Abstracts should be evaluated against the following criteria:

• Topic suitability – The proposed paper fits well into the scope of the theme or topic to which it was submitted
• Research questions/objectives/hypotheses – The research questions / objectives/hypotheses are stated clearly
• Theoretical background – The proposed paper relates appropriately to what has already been written in the field, and the relevant literature is recognized adequately
• Empirical background – The proposed paper is based on a managerial problem and/or grounded on empirical data
• Methodology – The research demonstrates rigor in the application of appropriate research methods, data collection, analysis and validation
• Presentation and discussion of results (achieved or expected) – The (expected) findings are clearly presented, and aligned with the stated research questions/objectives
• Contribution to OM theory, practice, methodology and/or teaching – The proposed paper promises to make a significant contribution to the field and is the contribution clear

The basic demonstration of appropriate theory development applies to all abstracts. Acceptable abstracts should provide not only a new explanation for a phenomenon but also undertake an empirical exploration.

Purely conceptual abstracts whose contribution consists in synthesizing existing theories and/or proposing new explanations of an Operations Management phenomenon without testing empirically these explanations are unlikely to be accepted.

Please remember to be constructively critical, since (mostly) you are reviewing research in progress, not final papers!! Also take into consideration that the author(s) may have access to your review and comments.

Your recommendation to accept or to reject an abstract for the Conference should take into account the above criteria, including, at the margin, the prospect of the presentation at the Conference to stimulate debate among the participants and to give impetus for additional research in this area.