2021 EARMA Annual Conference – Call for Volunteer Expert Evaluators
The 2021 EARMA Annual Conference Programme Committee (ACPC) are looking for dedicated volunteers to help us shape the content of the programme for the 2021 conference to be held in Prague 28-30 April. As always the conference will be structured in ‘topics’ and we are looking for people with expertise in one or more of these strands to help us decide on the content.
Each topic team will be led by a member of ACPC and we are looking for a couple of expert evaluators for each topic team to help us make the selection process as open and transparent a possible. Each topic team member will independently review and assess a set of (anonymised) abstracts. Then they will meet virtually to agree a ranked list of submissions for the strand.
What exactly is involved?
The deadline for submissions to be a 2021 EARMA Annual Conference Expert Evaluator is Noon (CET) on 21st Sept 2020.
Apply using the online form https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/KNZB8C8
The applications will be reviewed by the ACPC and candidates will be informed of the outcomes by the end of September, and if successful, which topic(s) they will evaluate.
Successful applicants (Expert Evaluators) are invited to attend a workshop to further explain the timescales and processes. The (virtual) workshop is scheduled for 11:00 CET on Monday 5th October.
Expert Evaluators will be required to review and assess (anonymised) abstract submissions in their topic area between 15th and 31st October.
If needed there could be a virtual meeting of each Topic Team, to be arranged for the week of 2nd-6th November, during which the Topic Team will discuss the abstracts and agree a consensus score and ranking for each submission.
This concludes the work of the Expert Evaluators.
Why are we doing this?
This is a new process for the ACPC and we are introducing it for a number of reasons. We are committed to making the conference selection process as open and transparent as possible. Bringing a wider range of views from a larger and more diverse set of reviewers that the ACPC alone is a positive move in this direction. We also see it as an opportunity for more people to be involved and contribute to the association but in a way that is less time intensive than serving on an EARMA committee. However, we do also see it as an opportunity to find out a little about what it might be like to serve on an EARMA committee and the ACPC in particular. It is also an opportunity to add to your CV.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: How many abstracts will I be expected to review? A: It depends on how many are submitted, but typically between 10 – 30 per strand.
Q: Can I be allocated to more than one topic? A: Most expert evaluators will only review for one topic area. Some might be asked to review more than one, but normally a maximum of two.
Q: Will I be given guidance on how to do the evaluation? A: Yes the ACPC will guide you through the process in an on-line workshop.
Q: Will I be able to see others scores of the other evaluators? A: No, it is a blind review process.
Q: How many Evaluators will there be? A: It is expected that each topic will use two External Evaluators.
Q: What if I am given a topic that I do not have expertise in? A: You will only be allocated to topic(s) that you have nominated in your submission.
Q: Do I need to be an EARMA member to be an Expert Evaluator? A: No, while we welcome application from existing members, we want to broaden the evaluation pool as widely as possible and welcome applications from any individuals with the appropriate expertise.
Q: How senior do I need to be? A: You can be at any stage of your career, we are looking to have as many different perspectives as we can.
Q: If I am an evaluator does that mean that I can’t also submit an abstract? A: No, you may also submit abstract(s), however you will not be able to review your own. Being an evaluator will not affect your chances of success if you do submit an abstract (or vice versa). However, having been an evaluator, this will surely help any you hone any abstracts you might submit to subsequent conferences!
Q: What if there is a potential conflict of interest? A: You will be required to declare conflicts and the strand chair will guide you through the process, although as the review process is anonymous at this stage it is hoped that the number of conflicts will be small.
Q: Will I be rewarded for my work? A: You will have our undying gratitude and a mention in the conference proceedings, but there is no monetary reward now conference fee reduction
Q: Will I be required to attend the conference itself? A: There is no requirement to attend the conference, but you are of course welcome to.
Q: What will the on-line application form ask me? A: See below
Phone number: [wanted as a secondary point of contact, just in case]
*Motivation [100 words max]:
*Confirmation that you are available for the workshop (11:00-12:00 CET 5th October 2020); time to undertake the evaluation (15th – 31st October 2020) [expected to be a few hours over that period]; and commitment to attend the Topic Team virtual meeting (tbc, week of 2nd-6th November 2020), if needed.
Please indicate which topic areas you are willing to evaluate – indicate first choice, and other choices – and in a few words outline your experience / expertise for the topic.
*Pre-Award: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*Post-Award: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*Impact: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*International: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*Policy and Strategy: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*Open Science and Responsible Research and Innovation(Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*Organising Support Service for Research; Professional Development, Skills Development and Team Building: (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
*EARMA and professional associations (organizing RMA professional development and recognition): (Yes/No) [If yes… 50 words max on experience/expertise]
For Topic Definitions see: