Review Process 

The review process will be double (see algorithm).


The acceptance decisions will take into account paper novelty, technical depth, elegance, practical or theoretic impact, and presentation.

  • Original: the paper explores a new idea, project or issue; discusses existing research with promise of new insight, discusses new research; or presents new ways of considering existing information
  • Engaging: presentation format will involve the audience in some way, or has high potential to attract conference attendees by addressing needs of the community
  • Significant: the paper raises and discusses issues important to improving the effectiveness and/or sustainability of open education efforts, and its contents can be broadly disseminated and understood
  • Quality: claims are supported by sufficient data; claims draw upon relevant literature; and limitations are described honestly
  • Clear: the intended outcomes of the paper are easily understood
  • Relevant: the paper addresses one or more of the tracks of the conference




Reviewers have access to the report on the anti-plagiarism of the manuscript. IMPORTANT! The report includes all data of the manuscript, including reference, affiliation, etc. The score is very sensitive to all data. Therefore, the quantitative assessment should not be perceived as an objective value of the originality of the manuscript.


Authors should make changes to the manuscript within no more than 1 week after receiving the comments of the reviewers. The revised manuscript is submitted via the online system.


Indispensable assessment criteria:

  1. The manuscript fully corresponds to Conference scope and matches its key topics
  2. The level of English meets the requirements for academic articles
  3. The Title of the manuscript is correct and fully reflects its` content
  4. The Abstract is written logically and fully reflects the main ideas of the manuscript
  5. Keywords provide a clear understanding of manuscript`s content
  6. The Introduction clearly outlines the scientific problem; the relevance of research is demonstrated
  7. Literature review characterizes the state of the research problem
  8. The research methods are selected and applied correctly
  9. The results are properly substantiated and well-presented
  10. Conclusions are clearly drawn and supported, they are impartial and objective
  11. The reference list is prepared properly; all literature sources are relevant and their geography is sufficient
  12. The manuscript meets all submission guidelines and requirements concerning its structure; it is logically presented
  13. The manuscript has a scientific originality and dismantles a certain contribution to scientific literature
  14. The study has further prospects for development
  15. The results of the study have practical application