NASPA
2019 NASPA Annual Conference

Call for Reviewers

We're Still Seeking Reviewers! Sign up by September 12th to help shape the program for 2019.

NASPA would not be possible without the work of our volunteers, and one of the best initial ways to get involved with NASPA is to review conference program proposals.

Want to help select programs for the 2018 NASPA Annual Conference? One of the important aspects of the NASPA Annual Conference is that programs are reviewed by colleagues in the field!

With nearly 1,800 programs submitted each year for just about 700 sessions, we rely on a cadre of professionals, like YOU, to help us craft the most relevant and useful program content that will be presented in March. Spend a couple of hours between September 15th and September 29th helping us review programs and share your knowledge with your colleagues.

Sign up to be a Reviewer for the 2018 Conference Selection Process

The call for reviewers is now open! We need YOU to help with the reviewer process for the NASPA Annual Conference. Log on to the NASPA Engagement Portal and sign up to be a reviewer. 

  • Complete your Reviewer Profile
  • Select the Types of Programs you want to review
  • And wait for your programs to be assigned!

Selected reviewers will receive notification in early September with their assigned programs. 

Apply to be a Reviewer

Tips for Program Reviewers

For those of you who have signed up for this opportunity for the 2018 NASPA Annual Conference, you should receive your sessions in the next few days. 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 have themes, 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 conference themes, 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?