Call for Reviewers

We Need You!

Volunteer reviewers help to weave the very fabric of the conference. The 2025 NASPA Annual Conference will include content-rich sessions presented by talented colleagues in our field - but in order to make this happen, we need YOU! Each program proposal will be reviewed multiple times by professionals in the field prior to the Conference Leadership Committee's final review. This rigorous process is part of our promise to provide exceptional professional development that is reflective of the needs and knowledge of the field. Reviewers make all of this possible! 

Program Review Timeline

Assignments will be ready for review by September 10. 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 will be due on September 25. 

The Conference Leadership Committee will meet shortly following the deadline to select programs, so please note that there will be no opportunities to extend the review period beyond the September 25 deadline. 

Each reviewer will be assigned 5-10 proposals to review. We recommend blocking time on your calendar between September 10-25 to focus on your program reviews, and allow enough time to read each proposal in full and provide thoughtful feedback to the submitter. Reviewer comments will be shared anonymously with submitters for their consideration.

Resources for Program Reviewers

For guidance on the review process and answers to common reviewer questions, visit the FAQ page and select the Program Reviews section.

To request assistance or report an issue with the program review process, please contact NASPA at [email protected].

Tips for Program Reviewers

As you prepare to complete your reviews, here are 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 have 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?