Reviewer Information

Thank you for your interest in reviewing for the AOM Specialized Conference on Big Data and Managing in a Digital Economy (AOM Big Data Conference). We recommend reading these reviewer guidelines to familiarize yourself with the process and review expectations.  If you plan to submit your work for review, you are strongly encouraged to sign up as a volunteer reviewer. Thank you in advance for the service you are willing to offer as a reviewer and we hope to see you in Surrey, England at the AOM Big Data Conference in April of 2018.


Benefits of Reviewing for the AOM Big Data Conference:

·         Reviewers gain visibility for themselves and their institutions.

·         Reviewing gives you an opportunity to contribute to the program planning process.

·         Reviewing is a way to give back to your professional community.

·         Reviewing is a way to learn about what constitutes excellent and interesting work.


We encourage you to volunteer to review for the tracks for which you have the most expertise. Each proposal that you review will be a maximum of 8 pages in length. Sign up to review for the AOM Big Data Conference today!


The number of proposals you receive to review will be limited to help ensure high-quality reviews. You will be required to complete your assigned reviews from mid-October to mid-November, 2017, so please plan your time accordingly. Please submit your review(s) by the deadline.



August 28, 2017: Submission System and Reviewer Sign Up Opens

Early October 2017:Submission System Closes

Mid October 2017: Reviews Assigned

Mid November 2017: Deadline to Complete Reviews

Reviewer Guidelines

We offer these reviewing guidelines to provide guidance on the type of feedback to provide to submitters in your review comments. Your constructive feedback is essential to support submitters as well as your colleagues attending the AOM Big Data Conference. The quality of the program is strongly influenced by your reviews and remarks.

General Areas to Cover

In addition to commenting on the theoretical development of a proposal and the technical correctness of the methodology, you should also consider the overall value-added contribution the proposal offers. Does the proposal pass the “so what” test? Consider if the proposal has practical value, and comment on its implications for the practice community.

·         Does the proposal reflect the overall level of quality an audience would expect?

·         Is the proposed of interest to a sufficient number of conference attendees? 

·         Does the proposal offer sufficient innovation and contribution?


Setting the Tone of the Review

·         Authors must be treated with respect, regardless of your evaluation of their work.

·         Keep your comments constructive. Provide the authors with constructive ideas to improve their proposal as they develop their research.

·         Identify the strengths of a proposal.

·         Help authors further develop their research by identifying areas of weakness in a proposal but also provide specific guidance on how the authors might address the limitations you have noted. The more specificity you provide in your review, the more likely it is that the authors will benefit from your efforts.

·         Be open-minded to different authors using different theoretical frameworks. Judge proposals based on how well they stimulate thinking and discussion. Also, keep in mind that submitters come from varying disciplinary backgrounds and research traditions with diverse theoretical and methodological orientations.


Review Format

·         To protect the integrity of the “double-blind” review process, do NOT provide information in your review that reveals your identity and do NOT seek to discover the identity of the authors.

·         Provide a structured review by separating and numbering comments. Where appropriate, cite specific page numbers, passages, tables, and figures in your review.

·         If you are uncertain about your comments in terms of some aspects of your review, please do your best to determine the accuracy of your position. Remember the quality of your review will help determine if the proposal is accepted or rejected for the program.


Please contact the appropriate Track Chair for further review guidance if needed.