Evaluation Process

WGC Workshop Review and Evaluation Process for DCS 2017

All proposals must meet the minimum criteria listed below. Proposals/research papers that do not objectively satisfy minimum criteria will be declined.

  • Each thematic area will be guided by thematic working group committee members. Each theme will have between 4-5 working group committee members
  • WGC members may not themselves submit workshop proposals, but their institutions may do so
  • Each thematic working group committee will evaluate workshop proposals and research papers received in that thematic area
  • The subject matter of the workshop/session proposal must be of direct relevance to any of the thematic areas – access, freedom of expression, privacy and digital literacy and empowerment
  • Proposals must be complete and ready for consideration, with all fields of the proposal submission form completed
  • Every proposed session should have at least two provisionally confirmed speakers. A provisionally confirmed speaker is defined as “a speaker who has been contacted, and expressed interest and intent to participate”
  • No more than 3 proposals from any individual or institution will be accepted for consideration.

WGC members will have the opportunity to review and discuss declined proposals/research papers.

Stage 1: WGC Evaluation

Why: To select a subset of the proposals according to the number of session slots available during the DCS event, the finalization of which will take place during an in-person WGC meeting

Who: Individual WGC members

For the initial screening, the organiser will circulate the workshop proposals/research papers to WGC members for individual evaluation. Each thematic area will be evaluated by a group of 5 WGC members evenly representing the different stakeholder groups.

In evaluating workshop proposals, each WGC member will grade the proposal on the following criteria, giving each criterion a score from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest):

  • Relevance: Are the specific issues to be addressed by the proposal clearly correlated to the designated theme and relevant to the overarching theme of the Digital Citizen Summit 2017?
  • Content: Is the proposal well thought out and does it cover enough aspects of the issue(s) of interest?
  • Completeness: Does the proposal provide all information requested, specifically: fully expounded issues, intended discussion outcomes, viable approach to discussion, and the formation of panelists. The status of confirmation of panelists will also be taken into consideration.
  • Diversity:  Does the proposed session represent viewpoints from multiple stakeholders and provide diverse geographical, economic, and cultural perspectives? Are there at least 2 different stakeholder groups on the panel? Is there gender balance observed on the panel? Are the listed panelists qualified to represent various distinct stakeholder groups? Does the session contribute to the overall diversity of the Digital Citizen Summit event?
  • Format: Is the session description consistent with the format listed (for example, if the format is open forum, then does the proposal describe how the open forum will be set up, with timings, etc., indicated; are all sides of the issues represented)?

In evaluating research papers, each WGC member will grade the proposal on the following criteria, giving each criterion a score from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest):

  • Relevance: Specific issues addressed in the paper should clearly correlate with the selected theme and the overarching theme of the Digital Citizen Summit 2017. Papers should address current issues.
  • Uniqueness: Papers will be judged on their uniqueness – conceptually and with regard to issues discussed. The paper should have a unique angle and tackle the issues under question in a fresh and innovative manner.
  • Completeness: Submissions will be evaluated on the basis of the quality of the abstract submitted. Therefore abstracts should be concise and complete, clearly enunciating all-important points covered in the paper.

If a WGC member rates a proposal 3 or below, they must provide a reason for doing so, as feedback for the workshop proposers whose workshops are declined.

The overall average score from 1 to 5 should mean the following in terms of ranking the session:

  • 5: An excellent proposal.
  • 4: A good proposal overall, although could be enhanced.
  • 3: An average proposal.
  • 2: A weak proposal.
  • 1: Does not meet criteria.

Upon receiving the WGC member scoring by 10th July 2017, the organiser will prepare a synthesis of the evaluation for WGC members by 13st July 2017. The total score for each proposal will be the mean average of the grades awarded by individual WGC members. Proposals will be ranked and accepted on the basis of the space available.

Stage 2: WGC discussion, identification of merger and finalization

Why:    to determine the final programme of the Summit
Who:    WGC members
When:  WGC Meeting on 13-15 July 2017 (TBC)

WGC members will look at the results to ensure an overall balance of the themes/topics. It is possible that for certain proposals, which scored just below the threshold of space and availability, the WGC will discuss whether to ask the proposers to make improvements to overcome deficiencies. Proposers will then be contacted and asked to submit a revised proposal.

In some cases, the WGC will receive workshop proposals that propose the same issues, topics and format. Due to constraints in space, these similar workshops will be invited to collaborate and “merge” together. In this case, the workshop proposers will be contacted by the organiser. In the event that the proposers decline to collaborate the workshop slot can fall vacant.

Initial screening: 10th July 2017

WGC members meeting: 13-15 July 2017 (TBC)

Announcement of selected workshop proposers: 25th July 2017