Skip to main content

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 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://www.immersivelrn.org/ilrn2026/academic-stream/

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 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:

  • Contribution to Immersive Learning Research
    How much does the submission 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 topic that it was submitted to. Otherwise please suggest a better fitting topic (https://www.immersivelrn.org/ilrn2026/call-for-papers/#program-tracks). Justify your review in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Originality and innovation
    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 "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Methodological or theoretical rigor
    Depending on the type of contribution (empirical or theoretical): How sound is the research methodology or theoretical contribution of this submission? For empirical work: are the experimental design, data collection, and analysis appropriate and well-executed? For theoretical work: are theoretical conclusions logically structured and coherent? Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the proposal submitters to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Validity and significance of claims and conclusions
    How valid, significant and appropriate are the claims and/or conclusion the authors make? Do they interpret and discuss the implications of their empirical results/theoretical conclusions and (if applicable) the limitations of their work? Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Quality of writing and academic style
    Is the text error free (spelling, syntax, grammar)? Is the text comprehensible to the academic community? Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Anchoring in relevant and current literature
    How well is the paper anchored in relevant immersive learning research literature? Does it provide appropriate citation of related work in the field? Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • Compliance with Springer LNCS style/formatting and referencing guidelines, including use of the respective template respective template 
    Does the paper comply with the Springer LNCS template and guidelines (https://www.springer.com/gp/computer-science/lncs/conference-proceedings-guidelines/)? Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

  • If helpful, recommend a more appropriate paper category to support the authors.
    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
    Please provide the overall evaluation for the submission. Should it be accepted for publication in the conference proceedings and presentation at iLRN2025? For all categories, revisions of papers based on the reviewers' comments should be made. Justify your review by providing constructive feedback to the authors to improve their contribution in the field "Comments for the Authors" below.

Constructive, Ethical & Objective Review

iLRN adheres to recognized peer-review ethics. Reviewers are expected to follow:

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 or the iLRN Scientific Quality Assurance Team.

Back to top