WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 ||

«Contents Key dates 1. Topics 2. Science & research content of the programme 3. Call for ‘breakthrough abstracts’ 4. Criteria for selection 4.1. ...»

-- [ Page 2 ] --

Relevance to the topic Abstracts whose content fits well with the topic and would fit well within the resulting sessions will be favoured.

Quality of presentation Abstracts should be logical, well-structured and easy to understand. Abstracts should present complete information. Where important results are missing, when the tone of the paper is obviously commercial or when more time is required to gather information, abstracts will receive lower scores.

NB: Authors only able to present results of their work closer to the date of the conference are encouraged to submit a ‘breakthrough abstract’ from 6 to 19 June 2016.

For each criterion, the abstract will be marked from 0 – 5, giving a maximum score of 20. Each abstract is reviewed by a number of different reviewers, and the average score out of 20 is calculated.

The 0 to 5 scale for each criterion is:

0 = criterion is not met 1 = very poor, little or no accomplishment of the criterion 2 = poor, criterion is only achieved on a superficial level 3 = acceptable, abstract has fulfilled the criterion but is not remarkable 4 = good, abstract performs strongly as regards this criterion 5 = excellent, abstract is exemplary as regards this criterion

8.2. Recommendations made by abstract reviewers As well as providing a numerical score for your abstract, each reviewer will make a recommendation. The

options available to reviewers are:

 This abstract should be rejected  I strongly recommend that this abstract is selected for poster presentation  This abstract is more suitable for poster presentation than oral presentation  This abstract is more suitable for oral presentation than poster presentation  I strongly recommend that this abstract is selected for oral presentation Please note the recommendations of reviewers are intended as a guide for the session chair.

They do not guarantee the final outcome.

8.3. What happens after the abstracts are scored?

As described under point 3, each topic (with the exception of ‘finance’) will have two topic leaders, one from industry and one from the science & research community. Topic leaders will have access to all the abstracts submitted for their topic, together with their average score and the recommendations of reviewers.

The topic leaders select the abstracts they wish to include in their sessions – this is based on the scores & recommendations of reviewers, but also takes into account the scope and balance of the sessions. Topic

leaders are given the following benchmarks as guidance:

–  –  –

General abstracts:

 Oral presentation: abstracts with an average score of more than 14 OR reviewers strongly recommending oral presentation;

 Rejection: abstracts with an average score of less than 10 OR one or more reviewers recommending rejection  Poster presentation: abstracts not selected for oral presentation but not considered for rejection.

The topic leaders then together prepare session proposals, with the abstracts they wish to include in their sessions for oral presentation. The session proposals will be discussed and finalised at a meeting of topic leaders and EWEA staff in May 2016. Presenting authors will be notified of the outcome of their submission by email (from conference@eweaevents.org) as of end May 2016.

All accepted authors (oral or poster) will be given the opportunity to produce a full paper, which will be included in the EWEA 2016 online conference proceedings. Only full papers of science & research oral presentations will be peer-reviewed and published as scientific literature, compiled in the EWEA 2016 Scientific Proceedings. As in previous EWEA event, the published volume will have a unique identifier (ISBN or DOI). More details will be communicated in due course.

All oral presenters are required to send a draft of their presentation to their session chair by 03 July 2016.

Sessions chairs will then contact speakers to discuss the draft presentation and agree on modifications as necessary for it to best fit into the session and be of maximum value to conference delegates.

NB: Following these discussions should the session chair feel that the proposed presentation will still not be of sufficient quality and value to the conference programme, the session chair has the right to reject the oral presentation. This, however, is only expected to be necessary as a last resort in exceptional cases.

–  –  –



Pages:     | 1 ||


Similar works:

«KRIStOFFeR jeNSeN Sensory Dissonance Using Memory Model Introduction In its traditional form, music is a sequence of notes and other sounds. As such, it has rhythm, i.e. the notes have onset times at regular intervals, and it has harmony, meaning that the notes played have discrete pitch values. While notated notes exist in discrete time locations, performed notes may be played early or late, or with longer or shorter duration. This performance may accentuate the perceived expression of the...»

«The Isomorphism Conjectures in general (Lecture IV) Wolfgang Lück Bonn Germany email wolfgang.lueck@him.uni-bonn.de http://131.220.77.52/lueck/ Bonn, August 2013 Wolfgang Lück (HIM) The Isomorphism Conjectures in general Bonn, August 2013 1 / 34 Flashback We introduced the Farrell-Jones Conjecture and the Baum-Connes Conjecture for torsion free groups: ∼ = Hn (BG; KR ) − Kn (RG); → ∼ −∞ −∞ = ) − Ln → Hn (BG; LR (RG); ∼ = Kn (BG) − Kn (Cr∗ (G)). → We discussed...»

«1 McDougall 10-Day Meal Plan Recipes Feel free to mix-and-match. There are two recipes listed for most meals. You don’t have to use both. These are just suggestions. Add a simple salad with an oil-free dressing, or add a baked potato or a side of brown rice. The possibilities are endless. These are just a few simple suggestions to get you started. DAY 1 Breakfast MULTIGRAIN HOT CEREAL This is a hearty breakfast that we enjoy. It does take a bit longer to cook but it is very filling and...»

«Fujita’s very ampleness conjecture for singular toric varieties Sam Payne Abstract We present a self-contained combinatorial approach to Fujita’s conjectures in the toric case. Our main new result is a generalization of Fujita’s very ampleness conjecture for toric varieties with arbitrary singularities. In an appendix, we use similar methods to give a new proof of an analogous toric generalization of Fujita’s freeness conjecture due to Fujino. 1 Introduction Given an ample divisor D and...»

«Can a Charter School Not Be a Charter School? Can a Charter School Not Be a Charter School? Shawgi Tell, Nazareth College, Rochester, New York, USA Abstract Charter schools are, by definition, contract schools. Charter means contract. To understand this fundamental feature of charter schools and the limits that stem from this aspect, this paper analyzes the topic of contracts and what contracting means for coming to terms with charter schools. This analysis locates charter schools in the realm...»

«Tutorial #7: LC Segmentation with Ratings-based Conjoint Data This tutorial shows how to use the Latent GOLD Choice program when the scale type of the dependent variable corresponds to a Rating as opposed to a Choice or Ranking. Ratings data can also be analyzed using the Regression module in Latent GOLD and the resulting parameter estimates will be identical. However, the Latent GOLD Choice program produces additional output, and can be used to ‘fuse’ rating and choice data, which is...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2016 www.theses.xlibx.info - Theses, dissertations, documentation

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.