Proposal and Application Guidelines
The Criterion: An International Journal in English · Conference Collaboration Programme
Before You Apply
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, and 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.
Eligibility
Conference Requirements
To be eligible for consideration under the Conference Collaboration Programme, a conference must satisfy the following conditions. It 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 it must be organised and conducted independently of the journal, with the journal’s involvement limited to the special issue process as defined in the Collaboration Agreement.
Conferences that do not meet these conditions — including events with no identifiable institutional affiliation, events that accept all submissions without academic assessment, and events that are primarily commercial in nature — are not eligible. Proposals from such conferences will be declined at the evaluation stage.
Organiser Requirements
The Primary Convenor named in the proposal 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 in the evaluation process.
Guest Editor Requirements
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.
How Proposals Are Evaluated
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 that is 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.
What a Proposal Must Include
A complete proposal submitted through the Conference Collaboration Programme must address all of the following. The Conference Proposal Template, available for download from this site, 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.
Conference Identification and Details
The full title of the conference, its thematic focus, proposed dates, format (in-person, online, or hybrid), and venue or platform must be clearly stated. Where the conference is part of a series, the edition number and any prior publication outcomes should be identified. The proposed special issue theme — which will serve as the editorial focus of the resulting publication — should be stated separately from the conference title, with a brief indication of its scholarly rationale.
Organising Institution and Governance
The lead organising institution must be identified with its full name, type, country, and official website. Co-organising institutions, if any, must be listed. The Primary Convenor must be identified with full name, academic title, institutional affiliation, email address, and, where available, ORCID identifier and academic profile URL. All members of the organising committee must be listed with their institutional affiliations and roles within the conference. This information is essential to the editorial board’s assessment of academic credibility and governance structure.
Academic Rationale and Journal Relevance
The proposal must include a substantive account of the intellectual motivation for the conference — the scholarly questions it addresses, the debates it enters, and the contribution it makes to its field. This section should be written in formal academic register and should reflect the rigour expected of published scholarship. A separate account of the conference theme’s relevance to the scope of The Criterion is required, with specific reference to the journal’s established subject areas. Generic claims of relevance are insufficient; the connection must be demonstrated with reference to the journal’s editorial profile and to the specific thematic focus of the proposed special issue.
Conference Review Process
The proposal must describe the process by which presentations are selected for the conference. This description must be detailed enough for the editorial board to assess whether a credible academic quality-assurance mechanism is in place. It should specify the number of reviewers per submission, the review criteria applied, and any conflict-of-interest management procedures. The members of the scientific or programme committee, if one exists, must be listed with their institutional affiliations and areas of expertise. Misrepresentation of the conference review process is grounds for immediate disqualification.
Participation and Submission Projections
The proposal must include estimates of the total number of presentations expected at the conference, the number of countries represented, and the anticipated academic level of participants. It must also provide separate projections for the number of presenters likely to be invited to submit extended papers and the number of extended papers likely to be submitted to the journal. These figures assist the editorial board in assessing whether the collaboration can produce a viable special issue. Estimates should be made with reasonable care; significant discrepancies between projected and actual figures may be noted in subsequent evaluations.
Guest Editor Nomination
The proposal must identify the individual or individuals nominated to serve as Guest Editor, with full name, academic position and institution, area of relevant expertise, email address, and ORCID identifier where available. Where two Guest Editors are nominated, the same information is required for both. The proposal should also confirm that the nominated Guest Editor has no conflict of interest with anticipated submitting authors and is willing and available to fulfil the role within the proposed timeline.
Prior Collaboration History
The proposal must disclose any prior editions of the conference, including publication outcomes, and any existing or concurrent collaboration agreements with other academic journals or publishers in connection with the same conference or its associated publications. This information is assessed for academic transparency, not as a disqualifying factor in itself. Omission of relevant information, however, is treated as a transparency concern in the evaluation.
Ethical Declaration
The proposal must include a completed ethical declaration confirming, among other requirements: that all information provided is accurate; that no guarantee of publication has been or will be communicated to conference participants; that the collaboration will comply with the journal’s publication ethics standards and COPE guidelines; that no article processing charges or publication fees will be imposed on authors by the organising body (the journal’s own APC, invoiced directly to accepted authors after acceptance, is a separate matter governed by journal policy); and that the Primary Convenor is authorised to submit the proposal on behalf of the lead institution. The ethical declaration forms part of the formal submission and carries binding effect.
Supporting Documentation
The following documents must accompany the completed proposal: a formal call for papers or conference programme, in full draft or published form; academic profiles or curricula vitae for the Primary Convenor and all nominated Guest Editors; and an official letter of authorisation or endorsement from the lead institution on institutional letterhead. Where applicable, evidence of scientific or programme committee membership and documentation of previous conference editions should also be provided. All documents should be submitted in PDF format.
Submitting a Proposal
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.
Acknowledgement of receipt is issued within ten working days of submission. The editorial board will communicate a decision within sixty days of receipt. The possible outcomes are: approval, approval subject to specified conditions, a request for further information before a decision can be reached, or decline. Declined proposals may be resubmitted following material revision, but resubmissions that do not address the grounds for the original decision will be declined without re-evaluation.
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.
After Approval: Next Steps
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.