All full and concise papers will be subjected to a double blind peer review process using an external panel of reviewers (per advice to reviewers). Having in mind the criteria outlined below, reviewers will assign ratings and make recommendations that will enable the Program Committee to prepare offers of acceptance or rejection to authors. The acceptance offers will specify a publication format and presentation format (options detailed above), and may include advice on mandatory revisions or desirable revisions. Owing to the tight timetable of only five weeks for the review and notification process, the Program Committee will not be able to provide specific, detailed formative feedback to authors who are not offered their first preference for publication and presentation formats, or to authors of declined submissions.
Reviewers and the Program Committee will be guided by criteria expressed in six categories.
| Category | Description | Weight |
| Suitability | Interest and relevance to ascilite conference | 20% |
| Originality | Meets the definition of research | 15% |
| Lit review | Quality of literature review and research questions | 15% |
| Method | Sound, documented methods, clearly presented results | 15% |
| Analysis | Clear, logical findings, conclusions and implications for practice | 20% |
| Writing | Ease of reading, grammar, spelling, format, referencing details | 15% |
As with previous ascilite conferences, one of the purposes for the review process is to obtain DEST/DEEWR recognition of the work in the category "Conference publication" (DEST/DEEWR, 2008). To this end, we confirm that refereed proposals accepted for ascilite 2008 conference publication will:
Papers submitted as poster proposals will be reviewed by the Conference Committee, but will not be eligible for DEST/DEEWR recognition, regardless of final, published length, because of the lack of external reviewing. Workshop proposals will be reviewed by the Conference Committee.