PME 2014 attracted 487 researcher report (RR) proposals. These 487 RR’s need 1461 reviews and the review capacity is limited. To handle this challenge, the IPC decided to repeat what was done for PME 37 and divide the review process for PME 2014 into two phases:

  • The first phase will begin Feb 3, 2014 and end March 3, 2014.  For this phase all RR’s will be sent out for 2 reviews.
  • The second phase will begin March 5, 2014 and end April2, 2014. During this phase any RR’s that need a third review will be sent out.

Your services as a reviewer may be required in either the first or second phase, or both. Please check your ConfTool account to see if any RR’s have been assigned to you.

ConfTool Reviewing Instructions

In order to view, download, and review the submissions assigned to you, please follow these instructions:

  1. Go to the PME 2014 ConfTool site and log in. If you have forgotten your password, you may recover it from ConfTool system.
  2. Select “Enter and Edit Reviews”. Here you can download the manuscripts.
  3. After reading the contributions, please enter your reviews into the online forms. Please select a score for each category and also enter your written comments.
  4. A given session on ConfTool will timeout after about 2 hours, so it is important to either SAVE and/or SUBMIT your entries within this time frame (otherwise, unsaved entries will be lost). You can login to finish or update your reviews at any time before the deadline.
  5. The deadline to submit your reviews in the first phase is March 3, 2014 and April 2, 2014 in the second phase.  It is absolutely necessary that you meet the deadlines for each phase so that we can continue the preparation of the conference.

Further Information about Reviewing

The following can also be found on the IGPME website.

How are Reviewers Selected?

The Local Organizing Committee recruits potential reviewers from experienced PME members who have either had two PME Research Reports accepted in the last five years or had three PME Research Reports accepted in the last ten years.

What is a reviewer expected to do?

A reviewer is asked to review several Research Report submissions (typically three), and to provide their evaluation of whether the Report is suitable for presentation at the conference.

Proposals should be significantly related to the Psychology of Mathematics Education, and
conform to the aims of PME as stated in item 2 of the Constitution:

  • to promote international contacts and exchange of scientific information in the field of mathematical education;
  • to promote and stimulate interdisciplinary research in the aforesaid area; and
  • to further a deeper and more correct understanding of the psychological and other aspects of teaching and learning mathematics and the implications thereof.

Contributions need not be limited to completed research. Ongoing studies may be submitted, provided that theoretical framework and preliminary results appear in the text submitted. Because of length restrictions, papers should be concise, but should nevertheless contain all information necessary to inform both reviewers and other researchers. Proposals merely stating that results will be presented at the conference cannot be accepted.

Authors are requested to refer to related papers that have been presented at previous PME conferences. The authors should state what is new in the research and how it builds on past research, or goes in new directions. Proposals too similar to papers previously presented cannot be accepted. Proposals that represent new and significant contributions to research in the Psychology of Mathematics Education are especially encouraged.

How do reviewers receive Research Reports and submit their reviews?

If you are eligible to be a reviewer, you will receive an e-mail invitation to review approximately two months before Research Reports are submitted (if you believe you are eligible and you have not received an invitation, please contact the Administrative Manager

If you agree to be a reviewer, you login to the Conference Registration system and select the research topics, grade levels and methods of research that you are willing to review. If you cannot be a reviewer, please inform either the Conference Chair or the Administrative Manager

If you have agreed to be a reviewer, you will receive an e-mail stating that your assigned Research Reports are available for review in the Conference Management system in January. Reviews are submtted via the Conference Management system, generally in March (the due date is given when you receive your reviews).

Reviewing Research Reports

Two types of papers are suitable for Research Reports:

  1. Reports of empirical studies (observational, ethnographic, experimental, quasiexperimental, and case studies are all suitable).
    Reviewers for reports of empirical studies will be asked to comment on the following:
    theoretical framework and related literature, methodology (if appropriate), statement and discussion of results, clarity, and relevance to a PME audience.
  2. Theoretical and philosophical essays.
    Reviewers for theoretical and philosophical essays will be asked to comment on the theoretical framework and related literature, the articulated statement of the author’s positionality, on implications for existing and further research, and on the relevance to the wider PME audience.

For each aspect, reviewers are asked to judge if the contribution meets the standards that are necessary to contribute to the main goals of IGPME. Finally, the reviewers make a proposal for acceptance or rejection of the Research Report.


Sample Reviews

Below are examples of helpful and less helpful comments in reviews of Research Reports, for submissions that would be accepted as well as those that would be rejected. The same can also be found on the IGPME website.

A Helpful Review of an ACCEPTED PaperA Helpful Review of a REJECTED Paper
RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION(S): The research question is clearly stated, is interesting, and the author provides sufficient context to make clear the significance of the problem.RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION(S): The research questions are overly broad, and the rationale includes too much of the author's opinion and insufficient connection to educational issues/context.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATED LITERATURE: This is a small-scale study that builds on prior work by ---- and ---- on the learning of rational number concepts. The theoretical framework is clearly laid out and provides justification for the choice of research questions.THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND RELATED LITERATURE: The literature review on beliefs is not connected to the study undertaken, as described in the statement of purpose. There is no theoretical framework provided beyond the literature review.
METHODOLOGY: The study is primarily descriptive, with ongoing analysis of the data. The descriptions of students’ work, together with the verbal data, are well selected to support the points made by the author, although I would have preferred to see other evidence provided in addition to that here.METHODOLOGY: The scales used to measure beliefs were not based on any theory, nor was any information provided on the reliability of the scales. One wonders about the validity of the study.
RESULTS: The authors make a clear connection between their analysis of student learning and of the theoretical framework presented. The results are clearly presented and well substantiated by the data. RESULTS: The authors make a number of unsubstantiated claims; for example, they say that males believe that all word problems should be able to be solved quickly, whereas females do not believe this, yet no data is provided to show this claim to be true.
CLARITY: For the most part, the report is well written and easy to follow. The table, however, appears to be missing some of the data intended to be there (see column 2).CLARITY: The authors have not made good decisions about how to wisely use the eight-page limit. The introductory section contains too much detail, while the results are presented in a cursory fashion.
RELEVANCE TO PME: This work is well connected to previous PME work in this area, both in terms of its topic and development, and in terms of references to other PME work.RELEVANCE TO PME: The purposed study would be of interest to many PME members but the manner in which the study was undertaken is not appropriate.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: The paper is interesting to read, contains original data, and adds to our understanding of how students learn rational numbers. The authors are encouraged to see the recent article by --------- which would provide an interesting comparison to the work in this paper. The presentation should contain a corrected table.REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: I am sorry to reject this paper because the research question is interesting and relevant. However, the lack of any theoretical framework, the poor design of the study, and the questionable results make it unacceptable.
An Unhelpful Review of an ACCEPTED PaperAn Unhelpful Review of a REJECTED Paper
RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION(S): Interesting questions.RATIONALE AND RESEARCH QUESTION(S): Question has been addressed in other research.
METHODOLOGY: Appears to be fine.METHODOLOGY: Poorly designed.
RESULTS: Interesting findings.RESULTS: Appears to be fine.
CLARITY: Well written.CLARITY: Poor
RELEVANCE TO PME: Of interest to some PME members.RELEVANCE TO PME: Ok, if better designed.
REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: Good paper. Should be accepted.REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION: Doesn't meet PME standards.

Reviewing the Reviews

After the 2nd IPC meeting (in the second week of April) the reviews will be sent to the authors. Then the authors will have the opportunity to give feedback to the (anonymous) reviewers about how helpful they found the reviews of their paper. Each author will judge the perceived quality of each of her/his reviews and the feedback will be available to the corresponding reviewers. The following questions will be used for this feedback:

  1. The review points out strengths and/or weaknesses of the paper and refers to them to justify the final decision.
  2. The author feels that her/his research is appreciated and she/he is encouraged by the review to continue and develop it further.
  3. The review gives brief, constructive indications on how to improve and develop the research presented in the contribution in the future.


WordPress Themes