All session proposals will be read and reviewed by at least three members of the conference committee. If there is strong disagreement over a proposal, AIEA may ask a fourth member of the committee to review.
Comments: 
In addition to the numeric scale below, reviewers are required to provide comments for each proposal explaining the score.  For example, a proposal may be scored low because while it is a solid proposal, the content would not be of interest to SIOs. 

Reviewers should consider the following: 

• Proposals should represent a variety of institutions and presenters, including non-US perspectives and smaller schools. Please be sure to flag/note proposals that have presenters from only one institution, which is only acceptable for roundtable sessions.  
• Proposals should include an SIO or Content expert related to key issues in the session.
• Proposals must not focus on “selling/advocating” a particular service/product/program 
• Proposals must not feature solely a “show and tell” 
• Proposals should relate to the conference theme and sub-themes. If you read two or more proposals that cover the same or similar topic, please write this in a comment and state which of the proposals is stronger.
• Proposals that are more interactive in nature, beyond "talking heads" (meaning that there should be substantial time reserved for discussion and Q&A) – and remember there should be a maximum of 3 presenters/speakers including the Chair if the Chair is presenting. (It is acceptable for the Chair to serve as moderator with three presenters as long as there is no formal presentation by the Chair). 

As an additional point of reference, a standard/panel proposal that earns a 4 rating should meet all of the following criteria: 
1.  Highly relevant to Senior International Officers/University Leaders 
2.  Highly relevant to conference theme/subthemes
3.  Strategic-level content for SIOs
4.  Diversity of perspectives (except in the case of roundtable proposals) – gender, institutional, national, etc.
5.  SIOs as presenters/quality of presenters (panels should have at least one Senior International Officer) 
6.  Degree of proposed interaction with attendees
7.  Beyond “show and tell”
8.  No promotion of service/product/program/company
9.  Beyond a US centric perspective
10. Overall high quality of proposed session (given all the above criteria)

As an additional point of reference, a roundtable session proposal that earns a 4 rating should meet all of the following criteria:
1.  Highly relevant to Senior International Officers/University Leaders 
2.  Highly relevant to conference theme/subthemes
3.  Strategic-level content for SIOs
4.  High quality of discussion questions proposed
5.  No promotion of service/product/program/company
6.  Beyond a US centric perspective
7.  Facilitator(s) ideally represents an SIO perspective
8.  No evidence of a formal presentation (note: No formal presentation is desired - this should be an entirely discussion-based session that facilitates maximum participation from all attendees)
9.  Overall high quality of proposed session (given all the above criteria)

As an additional point of reference, a seven-minute motivators proposal that earns a 4 rating should meet all of the following criteria: 

1.  Highly relevant to Senior International Officers/University Leaders 
2.  Highly relevant to conference theme/subthemes
3.  Strategic-level content for SIOs
4.  Discussion questions invite a diversity of perspectives – gender, institutional, national, etc.
5.  Quality/experience of facilitator(s)
6.  Proposed quality and extent of facilitated discussion among participants
7.  No promotion of service/product/company
8.  Goes beyond a US centric perspective
9.  Contains Lessons learned
10. Overall high quality of proposed session (given all the above criteria)
Evaluation Rating: Scale 1-4 (1 is Lowest and 4 is Highest)
1. Do not accept (explain reasons) 
2. Probably do not accept but there is some aspect of the proposal that is of interest and could possibly be combined with another proposal or re-structured (explain) 
3. Conditional acceptance, either with moderate changes (explain changes) or if there aren’t any other similar proposals that are stronger 
4. Absolutely accept (explain reasons)