Originality & Novelty (Is the work new and original within its field?)

5

Presents a completely novel approach, theory, or result that significantly contribute to the field

4

Mostly original; Some novel aspects or methods provided

3

Somewhat original; builds moderately on existing work

2

Largely derivative or incremental

1

No originality; repetition of prior work

Relevance to Conference (Does the topic fit within the scope of the conference?)

5

Highly Relevant: The paper is strongly aligned with one of the official conference strands/topics and clearly contributes to the multidisciplinary dialogue. Demonstrates deep engagement with both disciplinary and cross-disciplinary concerns.

4

Relevant: The submission clearly fits within a listed strand or topic area and provides potential for interdisciplinary impact, even if focused in one discipline.

3

Moderately Relevant: The paper’s theme loosely fits with a conference strand/topic, though connections may not be explicit. Relevance is present but underdeveloped.

2

Weakly Relevant: The topic is tangentially related to the conference strands and fails to engage with the key themes or intended audience.

1

Off-topic: The submission does not align with any stated strand/topic or the conference’s multidisciplinary focus.

Academic Quality (Is the methodology sound and well-justified? Are the results valid?)

5

Robust methods, thorough analysis, sound logic

4

Solid methods, minor issues or gaps

3

Adequately quality, some methodological concerns

2

Weak or unclear research design

1

Missing methodology

Clarity and Organization (Is the paper clearly written and logically structured?)

5

Exceptionally well-written and structured

4

Generally clear and logically organized

3

Understandable, some structural or writing issues

2

Hard to follow; significant clarity problems

1

Poorly written or disorganized

Significance of Results (Do the findings contribute meaningfully to the field or cross-disciplinary understanding?)

5

Results are impactful and have clear implications.

4

Results are meaningful and add value

3

Some significance but not clearly demonstrated

2

Limited significance

1

Insignificant or unclear results

Use of Literature (Is prior work adequately referenced and contextualized?)

5

Excellent: Literature is highly relevant, well-integrated, and current (majority from the last 5 years). Uses a strong proportion (≥60%) of primary sources (e.g., original research, data, official reports) with appropriate theoretical and empirical grounding.

4

Good: Sources are mostly up-to-date (some older foundational works may be included). Integration is clear, and primary sources make up at least 50% of the references. Minor gaps in theoretical or methodological connection.

3

Adequate: References include a mix of current and outdated sources; primary sources are limited (~30–40%). Literature supports the topic but lacks critical engagement or synthesis.

2

Weak: Literature is poorly used or largely outdated (majority older than 5 years without justification). Few or no primary sources. Connections to the topic are superficial or unclear.

1

Poor/Absent: Minimal or no references. Irrelevant, outdated, or improperly cited literature. Lacks any foundation in scholarly or credible sources.