Reviewing process

We have adopted a web-based procedure of "visible reviewing", which means:

- the panel of international referees is known, but not the reviewer of a specific paper,
- contributors can upload abstracts anonymously, abstracts are numbered,
- reviewers have special access, abstracts are reviewed by 2 referees each, (3rd referee if no consensus), all contributions and comments are public,
- contributors can upload / modify full papers, uploaded versions are indicated (preliminary, modified, final),
- reviewers give comments / requests for modifications and decide upon final acceptance,
- final accepted papers are indicated with the authors' names and will be downloadable as pdf

Reviewing guidelines

We asked for abstracts which contain, as a minimum, three components:
- the objectives of the research,
- the approach or method used and
- an indication of the nature of the main findings.

Implicit in the "call for abstracts" is a requirement that the content be relevant to the conference theme as outlined above.
The abstract's ultimate assessment criteria should be in its contribution to advancing the discipline of design by research.

The primary task is to determine if the abstract author should be invited to submit a full paper. Each abstract will require the assignment of a score out of 10. The sliding scale operates as follows;
1-3 Decline an invitation to a full paper
4-7 Accept abstract with revisions
8-10 Invite a full paper. A score of 10 should be seen as outstanding.

We ask the reviewers to provide the authors comments regardless of the score. Although the reviewers' details will be kept from the public, please use language you are willing to share.

The full papers reviewing process will be treated analogous.

in/out - deliberations

We are very thankful and pleased to have received about 200 abstracts. We are also grateful for the reviewers' commitment to their task and we appreciate the public debate that is emerging from the visible review process.

The conference is designed to disseminate about 90 full papers and this puts constraint on the number of abstracts to be accepted for further development and review. We see accepting 120 abstracts is appropriate. Due to the constraint and thanks to a fair number of good quality abstracts, we must and are able to move the acceptance threshold from point 4 to point 6 on the rating scale.

We regret that contributions at the lower end of the scale (1-5) are out.
In order to be in line with the overall aims of the conference without reducing the scope of viewpoints, approaches and perspectives, we give priority to abstracts that adhere to the following themes:


design in time (stories & histories)

designed evolution (science & fiction)

applying e-theories (rhythms & algorithms)

evolutionary design (genes & memes)

research paradigms (search & research)

design processes (complexification & progress)

innovation and management (knowing & knowing / systems & management)

meta-discourse and social systems

We greatly regret that some submissions receiving higher ratings (6-10) but with topics not central to the themes of the conference are also out. We are certain that these authors can easily find other dissemination channels.

Besides, to allow diverse representatives regarding country, profession, gender and age to participate at the conference, we exercise affirmative action. For further inquiry on issues of acceptance, please don't hesitate to contact the organizing committee.

For the second phase of the reviewing process - submission of full papers, we have designed a 3-stage procedure that allows papers to be uploaded up to 3 times:


Preliminary: full papers submitted for reviews; primary basis for selection

Intermediate: full papers revised following reviewers' comments

Final: papers finalized for presentation, to be published before the conference, marked with authors' names

Formal requests for full papers

please use only this word template (windows) word template (mac) (do not alter the styles)
  no files larger than 2MB
  do not exceed 5000 words
  embed all graphics within the file
  no uppercase style, no colored style
  no embedded macros
  we recommend to use auto footnoting
  The style of bibliographic citation and reference should follow agreed standards and must provide the complete information that permits a reader to find the item cited
  make sure that your text and its title contain no indication of its author
  deadline for upload: October 24, 2004
  login here to upload your paper

Panel of reviewers

Tevfik Balcioglu
Michael Biggs
Uta Brandes
John Broadbent
Anna Calvera
Rosan Chow
Rachel Cooper
Caroline Davey
Alpay Er
Özlem Er
Michael Erlhoff
Alain Findeli (full papers only)
Ken Friedman
Ranulph Glanville
Matthias Götz
Gülay Hasdogan
Birgit Jevnaker
Ulla Johansson
Wolfgang Jonas
Kari-Hans Kommonen
Fatma Korkut
Klaus Krippendorff
Aren Kurtgozu
John Langrish
Maren Lehmann
Franz Liebl
Uwe von Loh
Maria Cecilia Loschiavo dos Santos
Terence Love
Harold Nelson
Silvia Pizzocaro
Fatima Pombo
Mike Press
Keith Russell
Fatina Saikaly
Lisbeth Svengren
Artemis Yagou

© 2004 Niels Verhaag