Proposal and Application Guidelines
Everything you need to know before submitting a formal collaboration proposal — eligibility requirements, evaluation criteria, what a complete proposal must include, and what to expect after submission.
| Before You Apply | Eligibility | Evaluation Criteria | What to Include | Submitting | After Approval | All Programme Pages |
The Conference Collaboration Programme receives proposals from academic conference organisers across a wide range of institutions and disciplines. Not all conferences are suitable candidates for collaboration, and the application process is designed to identify those that are. Organisers are encouraged to read these guidelines in full before preparing a proposal, and to consult the Programme Documents — particularly the Guest Editor Guidelines and the Special Issue Review Protocol — to ensure a clear understanding of what the collaboration entails before an application is submitted.
A collaboration proposal is an academic document. It will be evaluated by the editorial board of The Criterion against structured criteria covering academic credibility, thematic relevance, research quality, ethical compliance, and operational feasibility. Proposals that are prepared with care, that articulate a genuine scholarly rationale, and that demonstrate familiarity with the programme’s governing principles are significantly more likely to succeed than those submitted as a preliminary enquiry. The editorial office does not provide informal pre-assessment of proposals before submission.
Submission of a proposal does not constitute an agreement to collaborate. Approval of a proposal does not constitute a commitment to publish a special issue. Both outcomes remain contingent on the editorial assessment process and, where a collaboration is approved, on the scholarly quality of the manuscripts ultimately submitted for peer review.
To be eligible, a conference must be organised by or formally affiliated with a recognised academic institution, department, research centre, or established scholarly society. It must have a clearly stated scholarly purpose and a defined thematic focus aligned with the scope of The Criterion. It must operate a credible academic review or screening process for presentations, and must be organised and conducted independently of the journal.
Conferences with no identifiable institutional affiliation, events that accept all submissions without academic assessment, and events that are primarily commercial in nature are not eligible and will be declined at the evaluation stage.
The Primary Convenor must hold a current academic or research position at a recognised institution and must be the individual who will serve as the principal point of contact with the editorial office throughout the collaboration. The organising committee must include academics with verifiable publication records in fields relevant to the conference theme. Proposals in which the organising committee cannot be independently verified will be assessed accordingly.
Every approved collaboration requires a Guest Editor, nominated by the conference organiser and formally appointed by the journal. Nominated Guest Editors must hold a doctoral degree or equivalent scholarly qualification in a field relevant to the proposed special issue theme, must hold a current academic or research position, and must have a demonstrable publication record in the relevant area.
They must have no undisclosed conflict of interest with anticipated submitting authors. Nomination does not constitute appointment — all nominations are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, whose decision is final. Full eligibility criteria are set out in the Guest Editor Guidelines.
The editorial board evaluates proposals against four domains: academic credibility and institutional standing, scholarly and thematic quality, ethical reliability and programme compliance, and operational readiness and collaboration viability. Each domain comprises specific criteria assessed on a structured scale. The overall evaluation produces a recommendation subject to final decision by the Editor-in-Chief.
Academic Credibility and Institutional Standing
The editorial board will assess the legitimacy and standing of the hosting institution, the academic profiles of the organising committee and Primary Convenor, the conference’s prior track record, and the suitability of the nominated Guest Editor. Strong proposals present a clearly affiliated, credentialled organising body with a committee whose scholarly profile can be independently verified.
Where a conference has prior editions, evidence of scholarly outcomes — published proceedings, journal collaborations, edited volumes — is a positive indicator. Where a conference is inaugural, the strength of the institutional backing and organising team must compensate for the absence of a track record.
Scholarly and Thematic Quality
The proposal must present a compelling intellectual rationale for the conference — not a description of its topic, but an argument for its scholarly significance. What gap in the literature does the conference address? What debate does it enter or advance? What contribution will the resulting special issue make to the relevant field?
The proposed special issue theme, which need not be identical to the conference title, must be specific enough to function as a coherent scholarly focus for a peer-reviewed publication. Proposals that describe a conference in general terms without engaging with its intellectual stakes are unlikely to score well in this domain.
The board will also assess the conference’s alignment with the scope of The Criterion, the quality-assurance mechanisms in place for the conference itself, and whether the projected submission volume is realistic and sufficient to sustain a viable special issue through the attrition of the peer review process.
Ethical Reliability and Programme Compliance
The editorial board will assess whether the proposal reflects a clear understanding of the Scholarly Curator Model — in particular, whether the organiser demonstrates that conference participation does not guarantee publication. Proposals that assume, imply, or structurally require a publication service rather than an independent editorial process will not be approved.
The board will also evaluate the transparency of the proposal: the completeness and accuracy of information provided regarding institutional affiliations, prior conference editions, existing publisher relationships, and the composition of the organising committee. Material omissions or misrepresentations are grounds for immediate disqualification.
Operational Readiness and Collaboration Viability
The proposed timeline must allow adequate time for the submission, review, revision, and production processes required to produce a published special issue. The editorial board will assess whether the conference dates, submission deadlines, and target publication timeline are realistic given the journal’s review cycle.
Proposals with timelines that are insufficiently specified, or that leave inadequate time for the review process, will be assessed accordingly. The board will also consider whether the collaboration shows potential for sustained scholarly value beyond a single event.
A complete proposal must address all of the following. The Conference Proposal Template provides the full structured format that proposals must follow. Incomplete proposals may be returned before evaluation or assessed at a disadvantage where essential information is absent.
Proposals are submitted electronically through the RCELL online application portal, accessible via the Apply for Collaboration page. The Conference Proposal Template must be completed in full and submitted together with all required supporting documents. Incomplete submissions will be acknowledged but may not proceed to evaluation until outstanding materials are received.
The editorial office does not disclose specific scores or detailed evaluation notes to applicants. Where a conditional approval or request for further information is issued, the conditions or required information will be specified in sufficient detail for the organiser to respond. Queries arising from a decision letter should be directed to the editorial office rather than to individual board members.
Acknowledgement of receipt is issued within 10 working days of submission. The editorial board will communicate a decision within 60 days of receipt. Proposals are evaluated on a rolling basis — there are no fixed application rounds or annual deadlines.
The four possible outcomes are:
Where a collaboration proposal is approved, the editorial office will initiate the process of formalising the collaboration through a Collaboration Agreement — an academic memorandum of understanding that sets out the responsibilities of both parties, the ethical framework governing the collaboration, the approved branding and communication arrangements, and the agreed timeline for the special issue. The Collaboration Agreement must be signed before any public announcement of the journal collaboration is made.
Following execution of the Collaboration Agreement, the Guest Editor appointment will be confirmed and the Programme Documents will be shared with the organiser and Guest Editor. The editorial office will establish the submission portal, confirm the submission deadline, and provide approved template language for communication with conference participants. All communications to participants regarding the journal collaboration must use approved language and must make clear that submitted papers are subject to full independent peer review and that acceptance is not guaranteed.
The full workflow governing the submission, review, and publication process is set out in the Special Issue Workflow and Policies page, which organisers and Guest Editors are expected to read before the collaboration commences.
The approved formulation, or its equivalent, is: “Selected papers from this conference may be invited for submission to [Journal Name], subject to full independent peer review.” Draft communications must be submitted to the editorial office for review before dissemination.
Published by: Research Centre for English Language and Literature (RCELL) · rcell.co.in
The Criterion: An International Journal in English · Conference Collaboration Programme