Best Paper Awards

About the award

The ICETOL 2027 Best Paper Award selects the work with the highest scientific quality among the papers accepted to the conference. The evaluation is based only on the anonymous full paper that is submitted.

The presentation format (face-to-face, online or video), the session type and question-and-answer performance are not part of the scoring. At the conference, it is only verified that the registration and the presentation took place.

The scientific evaluation is completed before the conference begins and the scores are locked. The award is announced at the closing ceremony.

Who can apply

Candidacy is voluntary; no paper is evaluated automatically. All four conditions are required for an application:

• Voluntary candidacy statement. Tick the “I wish to be considered for the Best Paper Award” option on the Full Paper submission page.
• Accepted abstract. An ICETOL 2027 abstract that has been accepted.
• Anonymous full paper. A text in English, 4–6 pages, in line with the conference template, that contains no author name, affiliation or other identifying information.
• Scientific and ethical compliance. Originality, authorship and the relevant ethics statements must be submitted in full.

How to apply

1. Submit your abstract.
2. After you receive the abstract acceptance notice, upload your anonymous full paper by 15 June 2027 and tick the award candidacy box.
3. Format your paper according to the template and remove all identifying statements (acknowledgements, project numbers, self-citations) from the text.

Applications go through a preliminary check. Papers that do not meet the eligibility conditions, or whose anonymity is compromised, are not sent to peer review.

Evaluation criteria

Each full paper is evaluated with a common rubric out of 100 points. Reviewers score each criterion on a 0–5 scale (0: absent, 3: adequate, 5: outstanding); the criterion scores are added up with the weights below.

A reviewer’s total score is found by multiplying the 0–5 score given for each criterion by the multiplier in the table and adding the results. The reviewer score is calculated as follows, where R₁–R₅ are the 0–5 scores for the criteria in the order of the table:

P = 5·R₁ + 5·R₂ + 5·R₃ + 3·R₄ + 2·R₅

Evaluation process

The process has two stages: independent peer review and the decision of the award committee.

Stage 1 — Peer review

Each full paper is scored separately by two independent reviewers. Reviewers do not see each other’s scores or reports; each report contains strengths, limitations and the concrete evidence that supports them. The average of the two reviewer scores is H.

H = (H₁ + H₂) / 2

If the two reviewers differ by more than 20 points in total, or by 3 or more points on any criterion, the file is flagged and examined by the committee for procedural reasons. No third reviewer is assigned; the committee does not change reviewer scores arbitrarily.

Finalist threshold. At most 7 papers with the highest scores that satisfy H ≥ 75 become finalists. If fewer papers meet the threshold, the finalist list is shorter.

Stage 2 — Committee

The finalists go to an independent award committee of 5 members. Each file is scored by at least 3 members who have no conflict of interest; the average of these scores is K. The final score N is calculated as follows:

N = 0.40 × H + 0.60 × K

Award threshold. N ≥ 80 is required for an award to be given. In addition, at least one author of the paper must be registered for the conference and the presentation must have taken place. This condition is not scored; it is only verified as yes or no.

Award categories

No category is mandatory. If no paper meets the threshold, no award is given in that category.

In case of a tie, the ranking is decided by the following criteria: the committee score K, then the originality, scientific contribution and method scores, and finally the recorded committee vote.

Ethics, confidentiality and appeals

• Conflict of interest. Reviewers and committee members declare employment at the same institution, joint publications or projects in the last 5 years, advisory relationships and close personal or financial ties. In a declared case, the person withdraws from that file and a member with no conflict of interest is appointed in their place.
• Confidentiality. Reviewer reports and committee minutes are confidential. Every decision is recorded with reasoned minutes and kept in a file archive with restricted access.
• Ethical concern. When an ethical concern arises, the evidence is recorded and the author is given the opportunity to explain. A concern alone is not grounds for disqualification; the outcome of the competent ethics process is awaited.
• Appeals. Appeals can be made within 5 calendar days of the announcement of the results. An appeal can only be based on a score calculation error, an identity matching error, an undeclared conflict of interest or a procedural error. Requests for academic re-scoring are not accepted. Appeals are made by e-mail to icetol.secretariat@gmail.com.

Timeline

All deadlines close at the end of the day in the time zone stated on the submission page.

Contact

For questions about the award process, write to the conference secretariat at icetol.secretariat@gmail.com.