Sigma Tau Delta Journal Evaluation Instructions

Evaluator Sites

To begin your work as a submissions reviewer, go to the evaluator site:

Sigma Tau Delta Review Evaluator Site

Sigma Tau Delta Review

Sigma Tau Delta Rectangle Evaluator Site

Sigma Tau Delta Rectangle

Sign In

If you registered online for an international convention or have previously evaluated journal submissions or convention papers, you already have an account. To access your account use the same email address and password you used previously. You will notice this is a new and upgraded version of the old EBMS evaluation system.

New Users

Your account has already been setup. You will receive an email with your login information.

Evaluation

After you have signed in to the site, you will see the list of eight applications assigned to you.

1. Click on the button labeled "Evaluate" to the right of the application. This will open up the application. It includes the fields the applicant has answered and their three documents. Below you will see the evaluation table.
   
2. In the evaluation table, select your score from the pull-down menu.
3. Please add concise remarks for each evaluation.
4. After making your evaluation selection and comments, click the "Save Changes" button to save your data before moving on.
5. After evaluating a submission, you can still change your evaluation if you click "Save Changes" but do not click "Submit." Before you complete your evaluations "Submit" all evaluations.
6. To move out of the evaluation, click the "Cancel" button.
7. Your evaluation will not be marked "Evaluated" until all judges assigned to the application have entered their scores.

If you run into problems, don't hesitate to contact Elfi Gabriel or Namon Kent at sigmatdapply@niu.edu.

Your decision about each submissionl must be completed no later than the agreed upon date.

Basic Rubric

Rubrics will now be on a 10-point scale (instead of the previous 5-point/letter grade scale). Weighting will be as follows:

Criteria for the Rectangle

30 Craft
30 Originality
20 Mechanics
20 Impact

Criteria for the Review

30 Argument
30 Organization
20 Style and Mechanics
20 Originality

Evaluation System for both Journals

10 Excellent+
 9 Excellent
 8 Very Good
 7 Good
 6 Satisfactory
 5 Average
 4 Below Average
 3 Poor
 2 Very Poor
 1 Unacceptable

This ten-point evaluation scale is designed to provide with you flexibility—enough rating options to make distinctions amongst submissions and to capture the strengths and weaknesses of each submission. Please use the full scale and work to refine your ratings as you read submissions. Please note that the review process includes both a scoring system and space for qualitative remarks. Reviewer remarks are especially helpful in the final adjudication of journal submissions, so you are encouraged to take the time to make brief comments.

Guidelines

As a reminder, the following information about review procedures and session formats appeared in the Journal Submission Guidelines. 

Helpful Suggestions

1. Before evaluating anything, you may want to take some time to read several dozen or so submissions to begin to get a general sense of the quality from high to low. Just like when grading papers, you will want a broader sense of the submission field before evaluating.
2. First and foremost choose quality over anything else. This is the interational publication for the English honor society so by definition I should be excellent. Please see previous publications in the related links section to get a sense of quality. We can print a smaller publication if need be or a larger one depending on your judgement—in other words we can go up or down in terms of numbers in a category depending.
3. To give you context, there are three rounds of judges: first, the editor and associate editors read everything and narrow the pool; then second-round readers are assigned submissions—they pick the submissions that will appear in the journals; last, the editor confirms the final selections and forwards those to the awards judges who pick the winners in each genre.