# Reviews for Academic Stream - Full & Short Papers (Oral Presentation) Thank you for supporting iLRN’s peer review process. Your careful and ethical evaluation ensures a high standard of research in immersive learning. Please review each submission **fairly, confidentially, and professionally**, using the criteria provided in the **review form** while following established international ethical guidelines listed below. The review form is embedded in EasyChair (have a look at [this page](https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-reviewers/page/adding-your-reviews-as-a-reviewer-pc-member) to see how to add your review). #### Paper Type Please consider the paper type when reviewing. You can find more information on the Academic Stream on this website: [https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions](https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions) **Full paper** - 12-15+ pages, incl. references - Springer LNCS template - for **oral presentation** Comprehensive reports of research, development, and application of immersive learning and technologies. Oral presentations might include live recording and global distribution. Online presentations will include publication and distribution of a pre-recorded video. **Short paper** - 8-11 pages, incl. references - *Springer LNCS template* - for **oral presentation** Concise reports or preliminary findings of ongoing research on immersive learning/technologies. Oral presentations might include live recording and global distribution. Online presentations will include publication and distribution of a pre-recorded video. #### What to Evaluate In the EasyChair form, please provide ratings on the aspects listed below - in your evaluation, please keep in mind that the paper might be **a full paper or a short paper:** - **Contribution to Immersive Learning Research (weight: 1)** - When evaluating the project at its current phase of development: How much does the submission (potentially) contribute to research on learning, instruction, teaching or education with immersive technologies? - Please keep in mind that the scope of the conference includes research on learning (education/teaching/training/instruction/...) WITH immersive technology (VR/AR/XR/MR/games/360°...), so both components should be clearly included in the submission. - Please also check if the submission fits well to the track that it was submitted to. Otherwise please suggest a better fitting topic ([https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions)](https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions)) - *Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field below.* - **Originality and innovation (weight: 1)** - How original and innovative is this contribution? - How novel and unique are the (proposed) approach, methods, or ideas? - *Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field below.* - **Methodological/theoretical rigor (weight: 2)** - Depending on the type of contribution (empirical or theoretical) and when evaluating the project at its current phase of development: How sound, comprehensive and robust is the (proposed) research methodology or theoretical contribution of this submission? - For empirical work: are the experimental design, data collection methods, and analysis appropriate and well-planned or executed? - For theoretical work: are theoretical framework or conclusions solidly grounded and logically coherent? - *Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field below.* - **Claims/Conclusions, Limitations, and/or Expected Outcomes (weight: 1)** - Depending on the type of contribution (empirical or theoretical) and when evaluating the project at its current phase of development: How sound, comprehensive and robust is the (proposed) research methodology or theoretical contribution of this submission? - For empirical work: are the experimental design, data collection methods, and analysis appropriate and well-planned or executed? - For theoretical work: are theoretical framework or conclusions solidly grounded and logically coherent? - *Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field below.* - **Language and academic writing style (weight: 1)** - Is the text error free (spelling, syntax, grammar)? Is the text comprehensible to the academic community? - *Optional: If you want, you can add explanations in the text box.* - **Anchoring in relevant and current literature (weight: 1)** - How well is the paper anchored in relevant immersive learning research literature? - Does it provide appropriate citation of related work in the field? - *Optional: If you want, you can add explanations in the text box.* - **Compliance with style/formatting and referencing guidelines, including use of the respective template** - Does the paper comply with the templates and guidelines as described here [https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions](https://codex.immersivelrn.org/books/instructions-for-authors/page/academic-stream-submissions)? - *Optional: If you want, you can add explanations in the text box.* - **Appropriate Category** - Which category would be most appropriate for this paper? Would you recommend the author/s to submit a revised version of the paper to another category? The author/s will be required to revise their paper as necessary to comply with the relevant page limits, and the paper will be reviewed again. - *Optional: If you want, you can add explanations in the text box.* - **Overall Evaluation (weight: 3)** - Please provide the overall evaluation for the submission. Should it be accepted for presentation at iLRN2027 and publication in the conference proceedings? - For all categories, revisions of papers based on the reviewers' comments should be made. - Justify your overall evaluation by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below. - **Comments for authors:** - Please summarize your ratings and how you got to the overall evaluation. - Point out the strengths and weaknesses of the submission and provide constructive suggestions for improvement. - Clear and detailed feedback should be provided, even if you are of the view the submission should not be accepted for the conference. - You can refer back to comments that you already made above. #### Constructive, Ethical & Objective Review iLRN adheres to recognized peer-review ethics. Reviewers are expected to follow: - **COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers** [https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers](https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers) - **iLRN Publications Ethics & Malpractice Statement** (*Reviewers’ Responsibilities*) [https://www.immersivelrn.org/about/publications-ethics-and-malpractice-statement/](https://www.immersivelrn.org/about/publications-ethics-and-malpractice-statement/) - **Springer Nature Reviewer Guidelines** [https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/peer-review-policy-process](https://www.springer.com/gp/editorial-policies/peer-review-policy-process) Your comments to authors should: - **Explain and justify all ratings** - Identify **strengths and weaknesses** - Offer **specific, actionable suggestions** - Use a **respectful, unbiased, and professional** tone *--> Do not include personal judgments or assumptions about author identity, background, location, or intent.* *--> Maintain confidentiality - do not share, store externally, or reuse content.* *--> Do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools, per COPE and Springer Nature policies.* #### Evidence-Based Evaluation For **empirical** contributions: - Clear research questions and rationale - Appropriate methodology and execution - Transparent reporting of **results**, **limitations**, and **implications** For **theoretical/conceptual** contributions: - Logical and coherent argumentation - Grounding in recognized scholarly literature - Clear advancement of conceptual understanding in the field Evaluate **only what is presented** in the manuscript. #### Literature & Research Integrity Assess whether: - Prior work in immersive learning research (i.e. prior ILRN conference proceedings) is **properly cited** - The contribution is **clearly contextualized** within the field - Citation practices meet **academic integrity** norms If you suspect **plagiarism, fabricated data, ethical issues or unreported AI use**: → Report concerns via *Confidential feedback to the program committee only.* #### Overall Recommendation When rating acceptance suitability: - Consider both the **importance of the contribution** and the **feasibility of revisions** - Ensure alignment between **ratings**, **recommendation**, and **review narrative** - *Even when recommending rejection*, include **constructive feedback** to help the authors improve #### Reviewer Confidence & Confidential Notes - Indicate your **true level of expertise** in the confidence field - Use confidential notes only for **communication with Program Committee Chairs** *(not to authors)* #### Award Nominations Nominate a paper only if it demonstrates: - **Outstanding rigor, originality, clarity, and impact** - Clear potential to **advance immersive learning research** ### Thank You! Your thoughtful review contributes to: - **Excellence** in scholarly publication - A **fair and supportive** academic review culture - Growth and **advancement** of the immersive learning community For any questions related to ethics or review standards, please reach out to the [iLRN2026 Program Chairs](mailto:ilrn2026.academicprogram@immersivelrn.org) or the [iLRN Scientific Quality Assurance Team](mailto:scientificquality@immersivelrn.org).