Reviewer Response Form

Please fill out the form below and evaluate the appropriateness of the individual/panel/poster proposal for the theme of the ATTW 2016 conference, "Citizenship and Advocacy in Technical Communication." 


  1. Submit a form for each proposal you review. 
  2. Identify all proposals by four digit SID number, title, and your email.
  3. Using the following numerical scale, rate each proposal against a set of evaluative statements: 

Numerical Scale

1 being low and 4 being high.  Please grant 4s sparingly. 

4:  Excellent: A proposal given a “4” would be a paper that you would feel compelled to attend, definitely include in the conference program, or would re-arrange your schedule for. Few proposals reach this status, so few (perhaps 5% or fewer) of what you review should receive 4. By giving a proposal a 4, a reviewer asserts that the proposal deserves a place on the program. 4s receive high marks for all the variables listed above and should at least tangentially address the conference theme. 

3. Good: A proposal rated “3” is a promising and solid proposal that is ready to be included in the program with some revisions, or if there’s time. 3s receive high marks for most of the variables listed above, and are better than most proposals. The topic offers a different way of looking at a recurring idea or theme. 3s are rare, perhaps 15% of proposals. You could recommend that your colleagues or graduate students attend this session. As a reviewer, you assert that 3s deserve to be on the program, and are likely to make the program.

2: Fair: Proposals given “2s” are rated as fair, because although they may be interesting, they have significant flaws. These proposals may receive high marks for some of the variables listed above but as a reviewer you have major concerns. Proposals earning 2s could, under the best circumstances, become good sessions, but as a reviewer you question if more is promised than a researcher may have already accomplished. Ultimately, a 2 is highly unlikely to make the program.

1: Poor: A "1" is unclear or unfocused and may leave you scratching your head wondering if the author(s) understand(s) what the ATTW is and does. As a reviewer you assert that 1s should not, even if we have to cancel the conference for lack of material, be part of the conference.

CFP Questions: 

  1. What does it mean to “advocate” in technical communication? What are some of the ways in which technical communication professionals and academics engage in advocacy? 
  2. How does advocacy or citizenship manifest itself in the workplace or in specific contexts? How differently does context—Western vs. non-western, Global North vs. Global South, formalized vs. non-formalized institutions, etc.—influence advocacy or citizenship efforts?
  3. What theoretical perspectives or approaches inform the field’s work in citizenship and advocacy? Which theories and approaches have worked, and which haven’t?
  4. What specific implications do approaches in advocacy and citizenship have for technical communication curriculum and pedagogy? How do we teach about civic responsibility and tolerance?
  5. What roles do our research approaches/methods/methodologies—e.g. textual, empirical, traditional, emerging, rhetorical, etc.—play in advocacy and citizenship in technical communication? What research approaches have advanced or inhibited the field’s advocacy processes?
  6. What challenges do technical communication academics and professionals face in undertaking work in advocacy and/or citizenship? What ethical challenges do technical communicators face when considering and reconciling the needs of different stakeholders?
  7. How does technology change advocacy? What is the role of new media in promoting informed and proactive citizenship?
Please enter the four-digit SID of the proposal to review.
Please type at least a few words of the session title.
Refer to the list of questions above from the conference CFP. Does the proposal significantly address one or more of these questions?
A proposal that receives an overall 4 rating should be one you would feel compelled to attend, one that you believe deserves a place on the program.
Full panels that receive a 4 rating should be cohesive, clear, relevant and ready to be added directly to the conference schedule.
If you have any additional comments, please add them here. Comments will be shared with proposal authors.
Go to top