New submissions are recorded then screened to make sure that it meets basic submission criteria. It is important to note that submissions that contain author self-identification will be returned without review.
After the preliminary screening, submissions that meet submission criteria are assigned to at least two reviewers according to procedures set by the Conference Planning Committee. A third reviewer will be assigned if needed. Submissions are assigned to reviewers on the basis of their self-reported areas of expertise and the number of submissions already assigned to them. All submissions are reviewed anonymously.
Reviewers are NASW members at the BSW or MSW level with at least two years experience post graduation and who have volunteered to serve as reviewers. Their names appear in conference site program and, although the author can assume that the reviewers of his or her work are among those people listed in the program, specific reviewers remain anonymous.
In general, the Standard Review Coordinator and at least two reviewers read every submission and reviewers rate each one based on the following factors:
- Clearly stated learning objectives
- Develops competency and builds or enhance practice skills
- Timely and relevant for micro, mezzo, or macro practice, policy, or research
- Incorporates research findings supportive of the current practice approach(s)
- Includes techniques and tools, as applicable
- Incorporates and references professional works and documents from NASW that are relevant to the submission topic, such as from NASW Standards of Practice, NASW Legal Issues of the Month, and/or policies from the NASW publication: Social Work Speaks. If you are a nonmember interested in the Legal Issues of the Month or Social Work Speaks, please contact us, noting your topic area, for assistance.
Reviewers recommend whether to accept or reject a submission. In addition, they may write comments that help authors improve their submission. These comments are forwarded to the author with the decision letter, except in cases in which the submission is accepted outright. All information related to the review of submissions is confidential, with the exception of comments to the author.
Due to space limitations, not all deserving proposals can be accommodated. The Conference Program Committee makes the final decision on whether to accept a presentation on the basis of the reviewers’ ratings, the balance of the subject matter, and submissions on similar topics.
Authors will be notified of a decision by May 13, 2016. Authors should be aware that reviewers volunteer their time. An author may inquire about the status of his or her submission at any time during the review and decision process. However, the decision on a submission will only be released in writing. The decision will be one of the following.
- Accept for Presentation. If a submission is accepted for presentation, the author will receive a letter of acceptance with an agreement form. The form should be returned with the necessary signatures and information as quickly as possible.
- Reject, Encourage Revision and Submission for a subsequent Conference. This decision is made when a submission holds promise but needs considerable work. It means that the Conference Program Committee has determined that there is interest in reviewing a revised submission. Reviewer comments specifying the changes that should be made are included with the decision letter.
- Reject. The Conference Planning Committee has the prerogative to reject any submission submitted for presentation. The Committee will forward copies of reviewer comments to the author with the decision letter.