Submission Checklist for Research Reports

Before submitting your PME Research Report proposal, you might want to consider the following checklist to ensure that you have avoided some of the most frequent problems which might occur. Please click on the bold headings to get more information for each question.

  • Is my submission original research?
  • Read the submission information?
  • Considered the review criteria?
  • Everything camera-ready?
  • Followed the formatting guidelines?
  • References and citations OK?
  • Text length within bounds?
  • Properly blinded?
  • Does it have an abstract?
  • Considered submission restrictions?
  • Paid the pre-registration fee?
  • Act as a reviewer for PME Research Reports?

Is my submission original research?

What I submit is original and new research for the PME community. The research has not been submitted to or published in other international conferences with published proceedings in a similar form. In particular, the same paper was not accepted for a PME conference before. Publication of extended versions in academic journals or of short abstracts in conference programme booklets is compatible with a PME publication.

I abide by general rules of good scientific practice and plagiarism such as, for instance, described in APA (2009; Chapters 1, 6, and 8) or McKnight et al. (2000).

APA (2009). Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. American Psychological Association.

McKnight, C., Magid, A., Murphy, T., & McKnight, M. (2000). Mathematics Education Research: A Guide for the Research Mathematician. American Mathematical Society.

Read the submission information?

I have studied the relevant submission information on the PME web site and in the 1st announcement.

Considered the review criteria?

It might be helpful to consider the information about criteria for reviewing given on the PME web site. So you can assure that you did not forget to cover important aspects in your contribution.

Everything camera-ready?

I am aware that, together with my co-authors, I am responsible for the contents of the paper. The non-blinded version of the contribution should be in camera-ready final form for publication. The acceptance decision will be based on the contribution as it was submitted. It will not be possible to correct any errors or even minor typos at any stage of the reviewing and publication process.

Followed the formatting guidelines?

I know that contributions that violate the formatting guidelines might not be considered for review.

My contribution follows the formatting guidelines given in the conference template.

For example:

  • The paper size is set correctly.
  • The margins are set to the correct values.
  • The font sizes for each part (headings, text, literature) are correct.
  • The spacing between lines and between paragraphs is correct, also above and below headings.
  • The title and names are included correctly in the headline of the non-blinded versions.
  • The author information below the title is set as usual text, and not within a table.

References and citations OK?

I have checked my citations and references.

  • My contribution refers to relevant literature from the field, also from what has been presented on previous PME conferences.
  • All citations from the text are listed in the reference list.
  • All references from the reference list are cited in the text.

Text length within bounds?

My contribution respects the length restrictions (8 pages for Research Reports, 1 page for Oral Communications/Poster Presentations, 2 for Working Sessions/Discussion Groups, 5 for Research Fora), in the pdf version, as well as in the Word file.

Properly blinded?

I know that contributions that violate blinding guidelines might not be considered for review.

The blind version of my contribution is properly blinded. This means that it is not possible for a reviewer to infer my own or my co-authors’ identities from the blinded text.

In particular:

  • All names of authors have been replaced by XXXX within the document, including the first page (beneath the title) and the header lines on each page.
  • All citations possibly identifying the authors and/or co-authors have been replaced by AUTHOR (YEAR), e.g., AUTHOR (2008), in the text and in the reference list. These references are sorted into the reference list as “AUTHOR (YEAR)” as if the authors’ name were “AUTHOR”, without any other information like the title or other publishing information. For example, the entry in the reference list might just be “AUTHOR (2008).”
  • No author names are visible in the properties information for the document.
  • Footnotes, figures, and tables have been checked for any identifying information.
  • No geographic details that allow the identification of your location are included. Where appropriate, the name of the country/region in which the data collection took place is replaced by COUNTRY/REGION.
  • Where necessary, project names and reference numbers of funding agencies have been replaced by XXXX in the text.
  • Any reference to additional material (e.g., online) has been removed.
  • Where necessary, acknowledgements have been removed from the document.

Does it have an abstract?

My Research Report contains an abstract. The abstract is not longer than allowed by the formatting guidelines.

Considered submission restrictions?

I know and follow the PME restrictions on the number of individual contributions.

  • Each person who paid the pre-registration fee may submit at most one RR (including an RR in a Colloquium) and not more than one OC or PP.

Paid the pre-registration fee?

The presenting author of the contribution has paid the pre-registration fee. It is best that the presenting author submits the paper.

Act as a reviewer for PME Research Reports?

The authors and co-authors of my contribution are willing to review at least three PME Research Reports during the next weeks, if they are eligible as reviewers by PME regulations and invited by the International Programme Committee.