Review of Ignite Abstracts
The Ignite Review Committee (made up of one individual faculty member from the following divisions: Art, Humanities, Social Sciences, Science, Education, and Business) will be tasked with reviewing abstract submissions for Ignite. Each abstract will be reviewed by the committee using the guidelines outlined below. Each reader will read and rate the abstract using the following criteria:
- Strong Recommendation for Acceptance (4)
- Recommend Acceptance (3)
- Acceptance if space allows (2)
- Rejection (1)
Abstracts receiving an average score between 4.0-2.0 will be accepted for Ignite
Abstracts receiving an average score between 1.99-1.50 will be accepted for Ignite if space allows
Abstracts receiving an average score between 1.49-1 will be rejected
Ignite Abstract Review Committee
Dr. Ryan Wynne-Chair of the Ignite Review Committee
Dr. Craig Martin-Representative of the Humanities
Professor Nina Bellisio-Representative of Art and Design
Dr. Steven Burns-Representative of the Sciences
Dr. Meghan Mihal-Representative of Business
Dr. Elizabeth Finnegan-Representative of Education
Dr. Benjamin Wagner-Representative of the Social Sciences
The major factors considered by the committee for acceptance of abstracts for Ignite include:
- The quality of work proposed
- The content of the abstract
- Adherence to due dates for Ignite registration/abstract submission
Guidelines for Reviewing Abstracts that Describe Research and Scholarship
Abstracts will be evaluated based upon the answers to the following questions. Note that not all questions listed will apply equally well to all abstracts.
- Is the abstract clearly written such that all individuals are able to understand the work being performed?
- Does the abstract clearly define the purpose of the project (i.e. the theoretical issue or research question being studied)?
- Does the abstract clearly state the significance of the work, and how it will contribute to the field of study?
- Are the methods, data collection, and analysis clearly defined and well developed (where relevant)?
- For an Ignite Lightning Talk: Is the work completed, or does the abstract demonstrate work will be completed in time for Ignite? (Submissions do not require that all work be completed, but the abstract should outline an overall plan of completion for the project).
Abstracts may be rejected by the Ignite Review Committee for the following reasons:
- The abstract does not clearly define the rationale for performing the work being presented.
- The abstract lacks sufficient summary of theory, methods, data collected, or results of research being performed. (Note: not all data must be collected at time of abstract submission, however, the abstract should outline the plan for collection and analysis of data leading up to Ignite).
- The contents of the abstract significantly overlap with the contents of another abstract submitted by the same author/mentor.
- The abstract is poorly written, and uses improper grammar.