Submission/Evaluation Process
Executive Director's Column, AJS Perspectives, Fall 2005

Dear Colleagues,
During the past summer, the conference program committee, made up of scholars across the field of Jewish studies; Sara Horowitz, vice president for program; and AJS staff devoted significant efforts to arranging the schedule for our annual meeting. Each year, we receive inquiries regarding the proposal evaluation process. In response to these questions, I would like to to explain the route a paper or session proposal follows from submission through placement in the conference program. As the number of submissions continues to grow, we do not have sufficient time or space at the conference to place every worthy proposal. At present, we are unable to accept approximately 20 percent of the proposals submitted to us. This is why it is important for prospective presenters to understand the various factors that affect acceptance and placement, and how to prepare the strongest possible proposal.

In the first phase in the review process, one of the twenty designated division coordinators evaluates each proposal. The purpose of this phase is for specialists in the field to assess the proposal and offer their recommendations for acceptance or rejection to the program committee. Depending upon the field, the number of submissions to a division can range from a dozen to more than eighty. Division coordinators have access to all subject-area proposals, so that if a coordinator does not believe a proposal fits well under a given rubric, she/he may ask that another coordinator evaluate it. The abstract is the only grounds upon which a coordinator can assess a prospective paper or session, so it is extremely important that the abstract represents as lucid and thoughtful an articulation of the intended topic as possible. While evaluation criteria vary somewhat based upon the proposed format (panel, roundtable, etc.), coordinators in general look for originality of research, a welldefined topic that can be presented within the given time frame, and evidence of a clear argument. It is vital that each participant in a proposed session submit an abstract in a timely way, otherwise the entire panel may be jeopardized.

Among accepted individual proposals—those proposals not submitted as part of pre-organized sessions—coordinators are asked to suggest groupings of three to four papers around a given theme. If accepted by the program committee, these groupings will constitute panels in the conference program. Division coordinators are also asked to list all the sessions in their divisions in order of priority, to provide brief explanations for papers or sessions they recommend rejecting, and to highlight any sessions which should be given special priority. This evaluation process allows the program committee to understand the recommendation and also provide feedback to applicants.

Division coordinators’ recommendations play a central role in determining which papers will appear in the conference program, but it is ultimately the program committee, led by Sara Horowitz, that makes the final decisions. In addition to the recommendations of the division heads, the program committee takes into account such factors as time and space limitations, overlap among divisions, and subject area distribution.

One of the most significant constraints is that no more than fourteen concurrent sessions (in rare cases, fifteen) may be held in a given time slot. This limit is in part imposed by the conference hotels, which offer AJS a finite number of rooms. It is also a policy developed in response to members’ concern that session audiences not be spread too thinly. One of the greatest challenges the program committee faces is how to place as many high quality individual proposals as possible in the final program. Each year, there are “orphan” proposals that the program committee must reluctantly decline, simply because there is no appropriate panel or session in which they can be placed. The Call for Papers explains that preference for acceptance is given to pre-organized sessions, because these sessions tend to have a greater coherence and underlying logic than panels made up of individual proposals. This policy is consistant with those of other scholarly organizations. At the same time, the program committee recognizes that graduate students and scholars new to the field or conference may not have the networks in place to easily organize panels. In addition, scholars whose research charts unexplored territory may not easily find appropriate colleagues with whom to form panels. To assist members in forming panels, AJS has created a “Request for Papers Board” on our Web site, where scholars can post a call for papers on a given topic. This year, in fact, several successful sessions were organized through this virtual bulletin board. Scholars have also turned to the listserv, H-Judaic, to post calls. These venues are not only useful ways of soliciting proposals for a session, but also of sharing one’s work with other scholars.

Rona Sheramy
Association for Jewish Studies