NASPA
2022 NASPA Annual Conference

Call for Reviewers

THANK YOU FOR APPLYING TO BE A REVIEWER! 

Volunteer reviewers help to weave the very fabric of the conference. We know that the 2022 NASPA Annual Conference will be full with content-rich sessions presented by talented colleagues in our field - but in order to make this happen, we need YOU! Each program will need to be reviewed multiple times by professionals in the field prior to the Conference Leadership Committee's review in October. This rigorous process is part of our promise to provide exceptional professional development that is reflective of the needs and knowledge of the field. Our reviewers make all of this possible! 

Why does reviewing matter?

The NASPA Annual Conference is distinctive in that each program is first reviewed by 5-8 professionals in the field, and then reviewed again by the Conference Leadership Committee. By spending just a few hours in the month of September to read and write feedback on our submitted programs, you will be a key player in shaping the conference content at this critical time in higher education.

Assignments will be ready for review on a rolling basis beginning on September 9, with all assignments available by September 16. You will receive an email with instructions for accessing the reviewer portal, where you will find the programs that have been assigned to you. Reviews are due on September 27

Pre-conference workshop review timeline

Please note that the program review timeline for pre-conference workshops begins and ends earlier than the timeline for all other program types, with assignments ready by September 7 and reviews due on September 17.

Tips for Program Reviewers

Reviewers for the 2022 NASPA Annual Conference will begin receiving their assignments on a rolling basis starting on September 9. As you prepare, Faculty Assembly Members provide six tips to think about when reviewing conference proposals.

#1: Start with the positive! Emphasize the proposal’s contributions.
  • Try: This is a timely topic and the author made a compelling case for why this study is needed.
  • Avoid: Here’s what’s wrong with this proposal: Everything.
#2: Evaluate what they did, not what you would do.
  • Try: I’m not as familiar with this methodology, but the author(s) explained it well and it seems appropriate for their purpose.
  • Avoid: This study examines the experiences of women studying abroad, but I think it would have been more interesting to talk to the study abroad advisors.
#3: Avoid harsh language—if you wouldn’t say it to a colleague face-to-face, don’t write it either.
  • Try: I like where this is going and would suggest that the author(s) add more explanation about their methods and consider including more specific implications for practice since the results are so compelling.
  • Avoid: This has absolutely no value or contribution whatsoever. The end.
#4: Be constructive — if there’s an area for improvement within the proposal, try to suggest how the author can address it.
  • Try: I wasn’t sure how the “satisfaction” section of the literature review was connected to the study, so you might consider removing that part or include a few more sentences to provide that connection.
  • Avoid: I didn’t really enjoy the literature review. It was not my favorite.  
#5: Even though NASPA Annual Conferences usually has focus areas, do not disqualify a proposal simply based on whether it reflects the theme.
  • Try: Although you did not draw a parallel to one of the stated focus areas, I appreciated how you showed the relevance of this topic to the field.
  • Avoid: This presentation does not connect to any of the themes stated.
#6: Do not disqualify a proposal based on its methodology, especially based on your conventional understanding of its purpose.
  • Try: Based on the aims of your research method, this information seems valid. Have you considered ways to broaden or support these findings further with additional resources or other research?
  • Avoid: How are the results of a study with five folks representative or generalizable?