This is how the selection process works:
The selection process and program organization are managed by a program committee appointed by the executive board of the GERA, which is supported by about 200 experts. For each contribution, two independent expert reports will be written. Based on these two reports, which in addition to written comments include scores, an average score will be calculated. Expert reports that differ strongly in their evaluation and which were submitted without any written feedback or for the formulation of which the encasing abstract had not been downloaded, will be re-examined separately by the program committee and an additional report will be written.
The criteria for evaluation can be accessed on the congress homepage (see below). Those having submitted a contribution can look at the report given by the experts in text form by accessing their user profile on ConfTool. Notifications as to whether a contribution has been accepted or not will probably be sent out in August 2025.
Given the space available at the main building of the LMU Munich, we will be able to hold 35 parallel events, same as the years before. The program structure may also be found on the congress homepage (LINK).
Members of the Program Comittee
- Prof. Dr. Thorsten Fuchs, Uni Koblenz
- Prof. Dr. Sabine Hornberg, TU Dortmund
- Prof. Dr. Tobias Jenert, Uni Paderborn
- Prof. Dr. Sylvia Kesper-Biermann, Uni Hamburg
- Prof. Dr. Ruprecht Mattig, TU Dortmund
- Prof. Dr. Anna Moldenhauer, Uni Bremen
- Prof. Dr. Falk Radisch, Uni Rostock
- Prof. Dr. Bernhard Schmidt-Hertha, LMU München
- Prof. Dr. Christine Wiezorek, JLU Gießen
Reviewers
A list of reviewers will be available for download from July 2025.
Criteria for the evaluation of submissions
Rigour and coherence
All submissions: Are the research question and objectives of the contribution/workshop/symposium/research and topic forum clearly defined? Are the conclusions/implications comprehensible?
Symposia / Work groups / Research and topic forums: Do the individual contributions conceptually fit together? Is the argumentation systematic and rigorous? Is the conceptual and/or theoretical framework appropriate in relation to the research questions of the individual contributions?
Individual submissions: Is the argumentation systematic and rigorous?
Relevance
Is the contribution relevant for educational research, educational professions, or educational and social policy?
Originality
How inspiring, novel, or innovative is the contribution? What potential does it have to expand the discourse in educational research?
Presentation
How would you assess the formal quality of the presentation? Does it meet the criteria of good academic practice?
Overall impression
How would you assess the overall quality of the contribution?
Relevance to the conference theme
Is the contribution relevant to the conference theme? If “no” is indicated for a symposium, it will be reassigned as a workshop in case of a positive evaluation, and vice versa.