Academy members are responsible for reviewing concurrent session proposals submitted for SCUP's annual conference. Here's an overview of how concurrent proposals are selected for the annual conference.
Each fall, SCUP invites all of the current academy members (about 90 people) to continue on as a reviewer for the concurrent sessions submitted in October. Some academy members have reviewed for over 10 years, and all members bring a wealth of perspective and knowledge to the review process.
New volunteers are also added to the Academy membership each year to cover attrition, fill the expected number of volunteers we need for the review process, and to add additional viewpoints.
While everybody brings a unique perspective, all volunteers go through reviewer training to ensure consistency in how they approach the review process.
Annual conference proposals are always due October 1, 11:59 ET. Immediately following the deadline, the concurrent session proposals are forwarded electronically to the four academy conveners. They read them all, and assign each one a single content tag. Then, the conveners gather on a conference call and come to consensus on the final tag assigned to each proposal.
While proposals frequently span several content areas, the tagging helps group proposals that share a similar primary focus, so that reviewers can read all proposals submitted in that topical area.
The content tags are used to assign proposals to reviewers. SCUP staff assign proposals to academy members for review by matching their areas of expertise and interest with corresponding proposal content tags.
Each academy member is assigned a manageable 8-12 proposals to read and review, but can read all proposals within the content tags they have been assigned. Each proposal has a minimum of four reviewers. Teams reviewing each group of proposals frequently represent a variety of higher education planning backgrounds.
Assigned proposals are sent electronically to reviewers around the second weekend of October. They have three weekends to complete and submit an online review form for each proposal.
Review scores and comments are sent to the four academy conveners to read prior to the conference program selection meeting in early November.
Both review scores and comments aid the committee in building a conference program that represents a balance of topics and content that will appeal to the diverse interests of SCUP's constituency, but they also look for emerging topics, and opportunities to bring fresh viewpoints into the program.
The acceptance rate for submitted concurrent sessions averages about 26%. While there will always be more good proposals than room for on the program, submissions are also considered for articles for SCUP's scholarly journal, webcasts, or presentations at other SCUP conferences.