Survival Guide: Managing submissions and building the program

Managing submissions and building the program

Papers, works-in-progress, case studies, workshops and symposium proposals must be submitted online to the appropriate ASAC division through the ASAC ScholarOne submission site. A link to this site will be available on the homepage of ASAC.ca when it’s available.

The submission site will close at 12:00 midnight (Eastern Standard Time) on Friday, February 17, 2023.
There will be no submission deadline extension.
Papers should not be sent directly to divisional officers. If this happens, the Divisional Editor should inform the author that he/she must submit the paper via the submission website.
Do not accept late papers. No exceptions should be made to this rule. The submission site will no longer accept papers after the deadline.
Any exceptional circumstances requiring consideration should be brought to the attention of the VP Program and Conference Manager.

ScholarOne Instructions

Click here for Divisional Editor instructions.
Click here for reviewer instructions. Divisional Editors will need to download and share these with their reviewers who are not a divisional officer and do not have access to this Survival Guide.
Click here for Program Coordinator instructions.

Monitoring Submissions

Prior to the submission deadline, the Divisional Editor should monitor the number of submissions to their division through the submission site.
If submission numbers are low, the Divisional Editor and/or Division Chair can send reminders to the division’s members that the submission deadline is fast approaching. The division’s officers can also contact potential contributors and ask them to submit papers. If the deadline arrives and a division discovers that it has very few submissions, it will be too late to change this situation.
Divisional Editors should review submissions as they arrive (not only after the submission deadline has closed) and ensure that papers follow APA style and do not contain plagiarized material.
Papers that do not follow APA style must be returned to the authors for revision, as long as the revised paper is returned prior to the submission deadline. No resubmissions will be accepted after the conference deadline. Papers that are identified as containing plagiarized material should be shared with the VP Program for a mutual decision on how to proceed.
Divisional Editors and reviewers should ensure that submitted papers are appropriate for the subject(s) related to their division. If the Divisional Editor feels that the topic of a paper is better suited to another ASAC division, they may contact the author and suggest that the paper be re-submitted to a more appropriate division. The author is responsible for withdrawing the paper and re-submitting it to a more appropriate division if they so choose.

Sending Submissions to Reviewers

Being prepared is your best way to ensure (relatively) smooth submission and review processes.

Before the submission deadline, the Divisional Editor should have a list of enough reviewers to review all of their submissions. Do not wait until the deadline to prepare for the process of distributing submissions to reviewers.
Please make time available after the deadline to promptly distribute submissions to the reviewers. Any delay at this point creates delays later on that will affect the preparations for the conference, and delay the announcement of the final conference program.

Please do not send submissions out for review before the submission deadline. Even if reviewers are able to start reviewing before the deadline, to avoid the appearance of any bias in the review process, submissions should not be circulated until after the submission deadline.

Before sending submissions to reviewers, the Divisional Editor should:

Ensure all author identifying information is removed from the electronic file.
Try to match submission topics with each reviewer’s stated areas of expertise and preference. This improves the quality of reviews and tends to speed up the review process.
Watch out for situations that can bias (or give the impression of biasing) the double-blind review process. For example, try not to send submissions to reviewers located at the same university as the paper’s author or co-authors, or to those who have worked collaboratively with the author(s). Please inform reviewers that if they feel they are in any way unable to provide a review that would generally be perceived as equitable, fair and unbiased, they should return the submission to the Divisional Editor and ask that it be reassigned to another reviewer.
When a submission is sent to a reviewer, also send the reviewer instructions for ScholarOne available above.
Remind reviewers of the deadline to complete and submit reviews, as published in the table of Schedule and Deadlines for Divisions. Please emphasize to reviewers the importance of the timely submission of reviews, because completed reviews are necessary to create conference and divisional programs.
Some divisions have symposium proposals reviewed by a divisional officer, rather than being sent to reviewers for the normal review process. The Divisional Editor and the Program Coordinator should mutually determine the number of symposia accepted, ideally after the number of accepted papers is known.

Reminders to Reviewers

It is advisable for the Divisional Editor to send a friendly reminder by email to reviewers periodically. Send a reminder at least two weeks prior to their deadline to submit reviews, and consider more reminders as necessary (a helpful practice is to send reminders one month out, two weeks out and a final reminder one week before the deadline). If reviews are not received by the deadline, the Divisional Editor should try as soon as possible to contact the reviewer to request completion. It is helpful to have backup reviewers on call if a reviewer backs out of their commitment or fails to respond; another divisional officer may also be asked to provide a review if necessary. Divisional Editors may also want to note the name(s) of any reviewers who do not fulfil their responsibilities and pass these names along to next year’s Divisional Editor.

Accept/Reject Decisions

Prompt notices of the outcome of the entire review process are important to participants and conference organizers alike.

Read the ScholarOne instructions above to learn how you can track and distribute submissions to reviewers. It’s a good idea to track your reviewers progress in ScholarOne and check in periodically to ensure the review process stays on track.
The acceptance and rejection deadline is included in the table of Schedule and Deadlines for Divisions. Decisions should be communicated to authors by the Divisional Editor by this deadline.
Please ensure you have time available prior to this deadline to make and communicate your accept/reject decisions. A delay at this point creates subsequent delays in the planning process.

Making Accept/Reject Decisions

The number of accepted or rejected proposals for each division depends primarily on the division’s criteria for acceptance and potentially on the number of sessions available to the division.

A quality program means accepting only quality papers and symposium proposals. The most important factor in the accept/reject decision should be the quality of the submission as determined by reviewers’ ratings. To this end, it is a good idea for the divisional officers to discuss:

What if there are significant disagreements between raters of a paper? For example, do we use the middle review scores, get an additional review, or defer to the judgment of the divisional officers?
What if we have many high-quality papers but not enough program space for all of them? For example, including more papers per session, each with a shorter time to present, will allow for more papers to be presented during the conference. Not having a formal discussant at a session can make room for an additional paper presentation.
Should we reduce the number of accepted papers if the reviewer ratings suggest that many of the papers are lower quality? Do we reduce the number of sessions in our division, or look to similar divisions to see if we can create a joint session?

Also consider acceptance criteria around works-in-progress. While valuing the developmental nature of the conference, there should be sufficient rigour and thought in works-in-progress to justify and support it being included for presentation in the conference. Look for proposed papers that have sufficient depth of thought and consideration of existing research, and represent promising candidates for further discussion and development as part of the divisional program.

Whatever decisions the division makes, the Divisional Editor and the Program Coordinator should make sure that there is enough room in the divisional program for all of the accepted papers. The divisional program will be developed in collaboration between the Divisional Program Coordinator, the Conference Program Coordinator and the VP Program. The total number of sessions in the program is based on the number of submissions and the amount of room space available at the conference site. Paper sessions typically contain three or four papers; divisional speakers and symposiums require one session each. However, we encourage divisions to develop new formats and methods for their sessions to provide new ways of collaborative and engaged feedback for submitters.

For example, a roundtable session format may allow more participants within a session and could provide an engaging platform for developing ideas and providing feedback and support for authors. In these types of sessions, you may consider distributing the participating author’s work to all participants in advance so they have a chance to read and be ready to provide feedback during the session.

Conference Proceedings

Titles and abstracts of ALL submissions accepted for the conference will be included in the Conference Proceedings. This is not a published document and will be available only to ASAC members through the ASAC website.

Each division will select a maximum of 5 papers (or 25%, whichever is larger) to appear in full text in the proceedings of the conference. However, the authors of these selected papers may choose to not have the full text of their paper appear in the Proceedings. The divisional award-winning papers will be selected from the 5 papers (25%) chosen for the Proceedings, and will be recognized as such in the Proceedings. Authors may choose to not have the full text of their paper included in the proceedings.

All divisions are to prepare a proceedings document. There is no requirement for full papers to be included. In keeping with the developmental nature of the conference and the opportunity to use the conference to get feedback on papers for future publication, divisions may also choose to have an abstract-only proceedings.

Submit Proceedings

Each division must submit its divisional Proceedings to the Proceedings Editor by the deadline published in the table of Schedule and Deadlines for Divisions. It is the responsibility of the Divisional Editor and Program Coordinator to ensure that all accepted papers/symposiums are accurately listed in the Proceedings following the DIVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS TEMPLATE. Materials required for the Proceedings are, in order:

Title page with division name and listing of divisional officers, in English & French.
The list of divisional reviewers
Full text of Best Paper (or abstract if the authors do not want the full text included)
Full text of Honourable Mention Paper and/ or Best Student Paper (or abstract if authors do not want the full text included).
Full text of other papers chosen for inclusion in proceedings, where a division chooses to publish full-text papers.
Abstracts of all papers that were presented but whose full texts are not included in proceedings.
Summary of symposia and workshops.

All the above listings must include full author names and institutional affiliations, along with the paper’s full titles. Please submit a single file containing this information, in Microsoft Word format and using the current Divisional Proceedings Template.

Determining Top 5 and Award-Winning Papers

Each division is entitled to give a Best Paper award, and can (optionally) give up to two secondary awards (e.g. Honourable Mention or Best Student Paper), as well as an award for Best Reviewer. These awards are prepared and paid for by ASAC under the supervision of the Conference Program Coordinator. The Best Paper awards from all divisions will be presented at the conference. Each division is responsible for presenting remaining awards during divisional events. This may be the Divisional Meeting or at another suitable event.

Most divisions grant the Best Paper award (and any secondary award) to the papers receiving the highest ratings from the reviewers. Some divisions, however, have a separate review process conducted by having a committee of respected scholars to choose the best paper for the division. Divisions may choose which method of determining award winners they prefer to use, but if there is a separate review process, it must be a double-blind review process and must adhere to the same policies and practices as the standard review process.

Work-in-progress submissions are not eligible to receive an award. Divisions may also choose to not award any papers. This decision may be made as a result of receiving a lower standard of submissions and/or only receiving work-in-progress submissions.

Points and Guidelines for Deciding Which Papers Get Considered for Awards and Full-Text Inclusion in the Proceedings

The titles and abstracts of all papers accepted to the conference will appear in the Proceedings. Each division will select a maximum of 5 papers (or 25% of their submissions) to appear in full text in the Proceedings.
To be eligible for a Best Paper award, a paper must be one of the 5 papers (or 25%) chosen by the division to appear in full text in the proceedings. A paper does not have to appear in full text in the Proceedings to be eligible for the best paper award.
Should the author(s) of the papers chosen for full-text inclusion in the proceedings prefer to not have the full text of their paper included, they must inform the Divisional Editor by the deadline published in the table of Schedule and Deadlines for Divisions. This is noted in the EMAIL TO AUTHORS OF PAPERS ACCEPTED FOR FULL-TEXT INCLUSION IN THE PROCEEDINGS.
To be eligible for a Best Student Paper award, a paper must be authored solely by students. It is the division’s responsibility to ensure a Best Student Paper award is given to students only.
Divisional Editors are not eligible to receive an award from their own division in the year that they are the Divisional Editor.
The Divisional Editor should send a letter to the authors of the award-winning papers notifying them of the award as soon as possible after the decision has been made. Authors should be informed that awards to papers will be withdrawn if at least one author has not registered for the conference by the one-author registration deadline.
The Divisional Editor should inform the Conference Program Coordinator by the program submission deadline.
ASAC will provide a maximum of three paper awards plus one best reviewer award per division. The conference organizers will organize and produce these three awards. Divisions can create additional awards, but they are fully responsible for creating these awards and recognizing recipients.

Points and Guidelines for Deciding Best Reviewer Awards:

Some divisions offer “Best Reviewer” awards to individuals who submitted constructive and helpful reviews. These awards are an honour that is easy to bestow, and which have an important positive impact, not only for the recipient but also for others who see the importance of providing high quality reviews. These awards are given at the divisional meeting. The decision to give such awards, and the criteria used to determine the recipients, are at the discretion of the divisional officers, however we recommend the following suggestions:

Timeliness: The review assignment was completed within the time limits established by the division editor.
Clarity: The review was easily read and interpreted by the division editor and authors.
Helpfulness: Comments were constructive, relevant, and realistic.
Thoroughness: The review gave adequate consideration to all aspects of the paper including methodology, figures, interpretation and presentation of results, ethics, relevance, etc.

When presenting the award, we encourage taking the time to identify and highlight the contributions of the reviewer, and the factors in their reviews that contributed to them receiving the reward. Use the opportunity to highlight what makes a valued reviewer for others who are participating, and who may review in the future.

Building the divisional program

Submit Divisional Program

The Divisional Editor must make and communicate all acceptance and rejection decisions by April 8, 2022. At this point, the Program Coodinator will has access to the submissions and the sessioner function on ScholarOne to start building the divisional program. If decisions have not been made by this point, the Program Coordinator should contact the Divisional Editor immediately.

The Divisional Program Coordinator leads the program building process in consultation with the Divisional Editor and the Division Chair. Full instructions for creating your Divisional Program through AbstractCentral can be found here.

Before starting to plan sessions, the Divisional Program Coordinator should contact the authors of all the accepted papers to ask if they have had papers accepted by any other division. If they have, the Program Coordinator will need to contact the other division to coordinate the scheduling of that author’s papers to ensure that the author is not scheduled in two sessions happening at the same time.

Joint sessions between divisions are encouraged. The Divisional Editor should review papers as they are received and should notify divisions of papers submitted to them that may be relevant to their program. If a division accepts a paper which may be relevant to another division, the Program Coordinator is encouraged to contact the other division to see if a joint session is feasible.

A Chair needs to be assigned to each program session. The Chair’s job is to host the session and to moderate discussion. Some divisions also assign Discussants to each session. The Discussant provides verbal feedback on each paper presented. Getting volunteers for session chairs and discussant is similar to seeking reviewers. Also consider inviting former or candidate members of the divisional executive to participate as session chairs or discussants.

Papers are typically organized into sessions by subjects, with papers on similar or related subjects being assigned to the same session. The Program Coordinator organizes the sessions and assigns a descriptive title to each session.

Should the division wish to include a special session within their program, please communicate this with the Conference Program Coordinator and the VP Program.

The deadline for the Divisional Program to be completed is included in the divisional timeline found here. Once the Conference Program Coordinator and VP Program have approved the program, the Divisional Program Coordinator should then communicate the divisional programs to their members as tentative to allow authors time to start planning their participation in the conference.

Please keep in mind that scholars are more likely to attend the ASAC conference if they have an active role in the program. At some institutions, funding is allocated only if a conference attendee is a participant in the program. While the limited number of sessions restricts the number of papers accepted by a division, there are other ways to increase the number of conference participants. The Program Coordinator should consider giving Chair and Discussant roles to scholars who will not otherwise attend the conference, or who may not be able to receive funding from their institution without being listed in a formal role on the program.

Bilingual considerations Presenters of Divisional Program

ASAC encourages divisions to consider how best to integrate English and French submissions into the program. Building sessions based on language alone may not provide participants the best experience as the topics may not be relevant. However, it’s important to facilitate bilingual participation and discussion as best as possible. Here are a few things that might help:

On the submission site, submitters have been asked to indicate which language they are able to present in. Some submitters may be able to present in both languages, which may help building an inclusive program.
Consider soliciting bilingual chairs and discussants who can help facilitate a bilingual discussion. You may also consider leaning on other divisional executives to help with this.
Consider providing the papers being presented (or any background or supportive materials) to session participants to give them a bit of time to understand the papers. This is a good practice for all sessions—not just bilingual sessions!

Thank you Email to Reviewers

The success of the conference relies heavily on good reviewers. The Divisional Editor should make sure that each is thanked for his/her time and contribution. A template for a THANK-YOU EMAIL to reviewers is in the Document Library.

Send Call for Nominations for Divisional Executive Officers

Each ASAC division has three executive positions: Division Chair, Divisional Editor, and Program Coordinator. In smaller divisions, the positions of Divisional Editor and Program Coordinator may be combined. In some divisions, two people may share the duties of one position if there is a large amount of work associated with that position, or if an individual is unable to fulfil the responsibilities of the position on their own.

After the division program has been finalized and circulated, the Division Chair usually sends out an email CALL FOR NOMINATIONS to solicit nominations for the Program Coordinator position for the following year’s conference. Divisions may also have to solicit nominations for other positions if the person currently in the position is not able to continue as a divisional officer in the following year. Nominations for vacant positions should be sent to the Division Chair along with a brief résumé of the candidate. These should be received by the Division Chair by the start of the ASAC conference.

Actively promote and market the opportunity to participate in a division as a volunteer on the divisional executive. In addition to promoting the opportunity to divisional members by email, consider approaching directly members of the division who have been active, regularly submitted papers or otherwise have participated in this and previous conferences. Consider in particular scholars who are at a point in their careers where involvement and contribution to the profession will help contribute to their personal development and career advancement.

The nominations for divisional officer positions are presented to the division members for voting at the annual meeting of the division, held during the ASAC conference. Typically, the Program Coordinator becomes the Divisional Editor the following year, and the Divisional Editor becomes the Division Chair the following year. Thus, Program Coordinators should be aware that they are accepting a three-year commitment to being a divisional officer.