JALT2025 Abstract Review Rubric
1. Title
Is the title directly related to the content?
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / The title gives little or no indication of the content of the presentation.
C / 1 / The title is related to the content but does not give a clear indication of what the audience should expect.
B / 2 / The title is related to the content of the presentation but may not fully inform the audience of what to expect.
A / 3 / The title is clearly related to the content and will fully inform the audience about what to expect.
2. Background
The proposal should reflect familiarity with current practice, theory, and/or research. The assumptions, premises, and/or empirical design upon which the proposal is based should be sound.
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / Little or no relevant background is provided and/or the proposal is not based on sound premises and empirical design.
C / 1 / The background provided is insufficient to support the proposed submission.
B / 2 / Relevant and sound background to the proposal is provided but further details would strengthen the submission.
A / 3 / The background provided is relevant, sound, and sufficient to justify the submission.
3. Method/Content
Is the procedure described in sufficient detail that a reader who is unfamiliar with the content area can understand the procedures?
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / Little or no information about the method/content of the presentation is provided.
C / 1 / Insufficient information about the method/content is provided. A reader who is unfamiliar with the content area will not fully understand the procedures.
B / 2 / Sufficient information about the method/content is provided, but more would be desirable to clarify the procedures for readers who are unfamiliar with the content area.
A / 3 / All relevant information is provided, a reader who is unfamiliar with the content area will clearly understand the procedures.
4. Research questions/Aims
Is the purpose of the presentation clearly described and relevant to the field of language learning/education?
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / No relevant research question or aim is provided.
C / 1 / The provided research question is either not relevant or too vaguely described to be useful.
B / 2 / A relevant research question or aim is provided but more information would be desirable for clarity.
A / 3 / A clear and relevant research question or aim is provided and the information provided is sufficient to judge the submission.
5. Results/Outcomes
Is the proposed content explicitly described and appropriate for the required time slot?
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / Little or no explicit description of the content is provided and/or the required time slot is not appropriate.
C / 1 / The description of the content lacks sufficient detail and/or might be more appropriate for a different time slot.
B / 2 / Explicit description of the content is provided and the time slot is appropriate, but more information would be desirable.
A / 3 / A comprehensive explanation of the content is provided and the time slot is appropriate.
6. References
Are there sufficient references of acceptable quality to support the claims made?
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / No references are provided or the references are untrustworthy sources such as unsubstantiated claims from non-experts.
C / 1 / References are provided but these are insufficient to support the claims made and/or not appropriate, such as research reports that are not relevant or are from non-peer reviewed publications such as departmental bulletins.
B / 2 / References are provided but are of secondary sources such as literature reviews or introductory textbook rather than peer-reviewed research journals.
A / 3 / High-quality references that are relevant to the presentation topic are provided to support the claims made.
7. Organization
Does the abstract follow the specified format?
The abstract should contain four sections for each type - Research Presentation and Practice-Oriented Workshop:
Research Presentation
Background
Method
Research question/s
Results and discussion
Practice-Oriented Workshop
Background
Content
Aims
Outcomes
Section 1: Explains the basis of the presentation, citing published literature on previous research and/or established practice in the field of language education.
Section 2: Explains the procedure used in the research or the procedure that will be used in a workshop.
Section 3: Provides an explicit research question that is relevant and can be answered by the research, or an explicit statement of the aims of the workshop.
Section 4: Explains the relevant research findings and their significance, or explicitly describes what workshop participants will learn.
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / The specified format is largely ignored, essential information is missing or not coherently presented.
C / 1 / The author attempted to follow the specified format but one or more sections are missing essential information.
B / 2 / The specified format was followed but one or more sections would benefit from additional information.
A / 3 / The specified format was followed and all sections contained sufficient information to judge the merits of the proposal.
8. Clarity
The proposal should be clear, concise, and well-organized. It should have been thoroughly proofread, with no obvious errors.
Rating / Score / Explanation
D / 0 / The quality of writing is poor. The proposal is filled with language errors. The proposal appears to have been written hastily with very little time given to proofreading.
C / 1 / The overall writing quality of the proposal is marginal and obvious errors are present. Multiple areas for improvement related to the clarity, and/or organization of the proposal can be identified.
B / 2 / The proposal is clearly written with no obvious errors. However, there may be a couple areas where suggestions for improvement to the clarity, and/or organization of the proposal can be made.
A / 3 / Writing quality is of a high professional standard and is clearly organized.
