Electronic Participation (ePart) Conference

Completed Research and Ongoing Research

  • Genres. The conference welcomes research papers as theoretical essays, formal analyses, technical discussions, design research 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. Ongoing research accommodates innovative approaches, project and case publications and short contributions such as posters, workshop and panel outlines.
  • 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 Ongoing Research track as they deem appropriate considering review suggestions.
  • Formal conditions. Authors are advised not to submitting more than three contributions to the completed and ongoing track of a single conference. This means that an individual may be listed as author/co-author on no more than 3 submitted papers, else the fourth and further papers will be rejected without review and without any further consultation with the author. The count applies to both, completed research track and ongoing research track.
  • Originality. IFIP EGOV compoleted and ongoing paper submissions must contain original material. They may not have been previously published, nor currently submitted elsewhere. All submissions of completed and ongoing research undergo a double-blind peer review process. If a paper is submitted at the same time to other conferences or journals either paper may be rejected without consultation with authors.
  • Submit your paper via the Conference Management System (will be opened soon).

 

Criteria for Completed Research Papers (Springer LNCS proceedings):

  • 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.
  • Maximum length of paper: 12 pages in Springer LNCS format.

Papers in this section will be double blind reviewed by 3 reviewers for rigor, relevance, originality and clarity of presentation. Accepted papers are published by Springer LNCS. Format guidelines for Springer LNCS are available here. The copyright for IFIP-Springer that authors need to sign is available here.

 

Criteria for Ongoing Research and papers on general development issues (outlet and format to be determined soon):

  • 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 e-government researchers.
  • Well structured and clearly written paper.
  • Maximum length of paper: 8 pages in ongoing research format.

 

Criteria for Projects (e.g. implementation cases, pilots, etc.) papers:

  • Fit with track.
  • Innovative solution or pilot (new in this area).
  • Important problem solved now and for the future.
  • Clear motivation (why the solution merits attention).
  • Theoretical and methodological grounding of the solution.
  • Good presentation of the design and application of system / pilot, etc.
  • Findings from the evaluation of the solution that challenge the prevailing understanding of e-government researchers and practitioners.
  • Well structured and clearly written paper.
  • At least references to related work and theoretical / methodological grounding.
  • Maximum length of paper: 8 pages in ongoing research format.

Papers in this section will also be double blind reviewed, but focus is more on relevance than scientific rigor. Accepted papers will be published in an open access outlet.

 

Format guidelines for ongoing research

  • Author´s guidelines for this format will be made available here soon
  • Copyright form - Granting of Rights - will be made available here

 

Prepare for Double-blind Review

General:

  • The first page should contain only the
    • title,
    • abstract,
    • 3-5 keywords characterising the content of the paper
    • name of the track to which the paper is being submitted.
  • The remaining pages should include the main body of the submission and all references, figures, tables, etc.

Anonymised for Blind Review:

  • Author name(s) should not appear in the paper (including the abstract).
  • Eliminate references to your institutions, your sponsors, your unpublished work, and your published work if done in a way that identifies you as author.
  • All author names must be inserted in the online submission form.
  • Delete author and institution information from document properties.

We kindly ask you not to indicate your name and affiliation in the paper. Indicate 3-5 keywords for your paper as well as to which topic your paper fits best.

Workshop and Panel Proposals

General: Workshop and panel sessions bring together researchers with complementary or conflicting perspectives on a research topic or another issue of importance to the domain-specific research field.

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.
  • Max. length of submission: 2 pages.

Review Process: Proposals will be reviewed for quality and relevance by at least two members of the organising committee (not blind review). Proposals should be max 2 pages and they should indicate the intended participants of the workshop/panel discussants. 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.

Accepted workshops shall publish a short abstract (2 pages) in the ongoing research  proceedings

Posters

General: The poster session is organised along the welcome reception on Tuesday evening. Posters will be exposed to the general audience. Accepted posters will be expected to bring along a poster describing the main aspects of the submission in presented bring together researchers with complementary or conflicting perspectives on a research topic or another issue of importance to the domain-specific research field.

Required Elements of Poster submissions:

  • Fit with the conference themes.
  • A general description of the theme / proposal / idea.
  • An outline and graphical representation of the main concept to be presented in the poster.
  • An argumentation and motivation why this is a relevant poster to IFIP EGOV.
  • References, as appropriate.
  • Maximum length: 2 pages in ongoing research format.

Review Process: Poster submissions will not be blind reviewed. The program committee will evaluate proposals to meet conference participation guidelines and to complement the overall program.

Review Criteria for Posters:

  • Broad appeal of topic and concept.
  • Relevance to the conference.
  • Potential to generate interest.

Accepted poster contributions will be published as short abstracts (2 pages) in ongoing research format.

PhD student colloquium submissions

  Students should at least have passed the first year of PhD programme and 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 e-government, public e-governance and e-participation as well as ICT in public policy development.

Submissions to the PhD Colloquium should indicate the name and affiliation of proposer, title of the paper, and 3-5 keywords.

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.