Fill and Sign the 1003 Commercial Loan Application PDF Form

Innovation through Knowledge Transfer RESEARCH WITH IMPACT InnovationKT Guidance Notes for Reviewers The Review Process Papers for InnovationKT are handled by the PROSE software system (more information available at www.prosemanager.com). Reviewers will initially receive an email from PROSE informing them of their login details. Subsequently they will receive emails informing them that they have been allocated papers for review. To conduct the review it is necessary to log in to PROSE form the InnovationKT web site. Once in PROSE, a PDF copy of the document is available for inspection, and the review must be entered into a web-based form. Please note that PROSE emails asking you to conduct a review also contain a ‘lost password’ link in case you do not have your login details to hand. Each email also contains a link to enable you to refuse the review request if you are unable to process the review. Papers for InnovationKT Papers submitted for InnovationKT are of two types, Full Papers and Short papers. Both categories of paper will be presented at the conference, either orally or by means of a poster. However, the type of document submitted for review is different. Full Papers If accepted, Full Papers will appear in the proceedings published by Springer Verlag, and so complete full-length papers are required for review. Reviewers are asked to advise whether the submitted paper is worthy of publication judged by the normal standards of international conferences. Short Papers In the case of Short Papers, an abstract of one or two pages is submitted for review. This will be published in the conference digest, but there will be no publication in the proceedings. Presentation at the conference will be the same as for a Full Paper. Please note that in the case of a Short Paper, all the Review has to base an opinion on is the abstract. The Reviewer is asked to give an opinion about the presentation through this restricted window. Hence, some of the assessment criteria (e.g. Structure) may be less relevant than for a Full Paper. It should not be assumed that all Short Papers will be presented as posters. Assessment of Papers Reviewers are asked to assess the paper based on the following criteria using the web-based form:- Paper's match with the scope and topics of the conference • How relevant is the paper to the conference, does it have some knowledge transfer content or relevance? Structure of the paper • Does the paper have a suitable structure e.g. Introduction, Context, Body, Conclusions, References? Originality, novelty and significance of the material • Does the paper make some (perhaps small) contribution to knowledge? Comprehensibility, English and presentation • Is the paper well presented, written in good English, and free of errors? Overall impression • What is the reviewer’s overall assessment of the paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------InnovationKT Guidance Notes for Reviewers – Page 1 of 2 R.J.Howlett – KES International -- July 2009 Suitability for ORAL presentation • Does the content of the paper indicate that it would be best conveyed through an oral presentation (15 minutes speaking time with 5 minutes for questions)? Suitability for POSTER presentation • Would the paper be best conveyed through a poster presentation? Suitability as a FULL paper (approx 8-10 pages) • Is the paper substantial enough for inclusion as a Full Paper? Suitability as a SHORT paper (approx 1-2 pages) • Is it appropriate for inclusion in the Short Paper category? Recommendation Reviewers are asked to make one of the following three recommendations about the paper:Reject • The paper contains significant weaknesses or flaws, or is of such a low standard that there is no prospect of the authors being able to bring it up to an acceptable level in the available timescale – OR the paper is outside the scope of the conference. Accept Subject to Revision • The paper contains some weaknesses, but it is possible to rectify those in the available timescale. The authors should follow the recommendations of the reviewers and resubmit the paper. The re-submitted paper will be checked by the Session Chair, who may then accept/reject the paper, or exceptionally required further changes, although timescales are likely to make this impractical. Accept Without Change • The paper is without significant weaknesses or flaws and meets the majority of the criteria for acceptance. The authors are asked to conduct one final check for typos etc., then submit a final PDF version of the paper, to be accepted by the Session Chair, after which the word-processor (MS-Word or LaTeX) version of the paper is requested. Principle for Acceptance All good papers should be accepted. Where papers have some flaws, but are capable of improvement, reviewers are requested to provide guidance in their reviews so that authors may bring their papers up to a satisfactory standard. Poor papers with little chance of reaching an adequate standard should be rejected. Conference papers are often descriptions of work in progress, or part-completed investigations. It would not be expected that they would consider issues in such depth, or be as profound or complex as journal papers. However, they should be complete, satisfactorily presented and provide a reasonable depth of coverage of a subject. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------InnovationKT Guidance Notes for Reviewers – Page 2 of 2 R.J.Howlett – KES International -- July 2009