Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference

Research Papers, Ongoing Research and Case Descriptions

Genres

The conference welcomes theoretical essays, formal analyses, technical discussions, and reports of quantitative or qualitative empirical research. Completed research papers should have completed analyses and documentation of results. They should be similar to journal submissions, but shorter.

Review Process

Papers will be prescreened for conformity with submission guidelines and for overall appropriateness for the conference. Papers that pass the initial screening processes will be double blind reviewed. The Program Co-Chairs reserve the right to shift a submission between the Completed Research and the Ongoing Research / Case Descriptions track as they deem appropriate considering review suggestions.

Outstanding paper awards

Criteria for ePart Research Papers:

  • Fit with track.
  • Interesting/important problem.
  • Clear motivation (why the problem is interesting theoretically and/or practically).
  • Conceptual development and grounding in prior literature.
  • Methodological adequacy (if relevant).
  • Adequate list of references to related work and grounding theories.
  • Interesting findings.
  • Well structured and clearly written paper

Criteria for ongoing research and case descriptions:

  • Fit with track.
  • Important problem now and in the future.
  • Clear motivation (why the problem merits attention).
  • Conceptual development that lays a foundation for future research or develops a new theoretical or practical view of a phenomenon of interest.
  • Methodological adequacy (if relevant).
  • Findings that challenge the prevailing understanding of eParticipation researchers.
  • Well structured and clearly written paper.

Workshop and Panel Proposal Submissions

General

Workshop and panel sessions bring together researchers with complementary or conflicting perspectives on specific eParticipation research topics.

Required Elements of Workshop and Panel Proposals:

  • A general description of the panel or issues to be discussed or debated in the workshop.
  • Names and affiliations of all panel or debate participants.
  • A statement that, if accepted, all participants have made a commitment to attend the conference and serve on the panel or debate.
  • A brief description of each participant's background, including expertise related to the topic and views of the issues.
  • A statement of any controversial issues that will be discussed and the names of those who will take opposing viewpoints (identification of proponents and opponents is required for all debates).
  • A description of the format of interaction among participants and with the audience.
  • References, as appropriate.
  • Please send your abstract by e-mail to the Conference chairs

Review Process

Workshop, panel and debate submissions will not be blind reviewed. The program committee reserves the right to modify panel and debate proposals to meet conference participation guidelines and to complement the overall program.

Review Criteria for Workshops/Panels:

  • Broad appeal of topic and/or participants.
  • Timeliness, relevance, and/or controversial nature of topic.
  • Potential to generate audience participation in the discussion.

PhD student colloquium submissions

Students should be able to present a clear plan and some results from their work.

Genres

The colloquium welcomes qualitative and quantitative research from any discipline relevant to eParticipation research or practice.

Review Process

Papers will be pre-screened for conformity with submission guidelines and for overall appropriateness for the colloquium. Papers that pass the initial screening process will be reviewed by the members of the organising committee. PhD proposals will not be blind reviewed.

Review Criteria for PhD colloquium contributions:

  • Relevance for domain specific research.
  • Interesting/important problem.
  • Clear motivation (why the problem is interesting theoretically and/or practically).
  • Conceptual development and/or grounding in prior literature.
  • Methodological adequacy.
  • Well structured and clearly written paper