A review context is the workflow engine behind structured review on Scholardemia. The same machinery runs journal peer review and conference submission review, and it is designed so a department, funder, or programme can run a comparable process over its own material.
What a review context configures
- Review model: double-blind, single-blind, or open review, with anonymisation applied to what reviewers see accordingly.
- Deadlines: submission, review, and camera-ready dates for the whole programme.
- Reviewer pool: who may be assigned, with manual assignment or automatic matching that screens for conflicts of interest.
- Reviewers per submission: a minimum and maximum, and whether consensus is required.
- Rubrics: weighted scoring criteria on a defined scale, frozen onto each review so later rubric edits do not rewrite past assessments.
- Submission templates and categories: what submitters provide and how entries are grouped.
- Roles: editors and administrators who manage the workflow, plus written instructions for submitters and reviewers.
Where you meet review contexts today
Journals attach a review context to their editorial workflow, and events use one to review submitted abstracts and papers; see Calls for submissions. As a reviewer or submitter you rarely see the context itself, only its effects: the blinding, the form, the deadlines, and the rubric.
Running one for your institution
If your department, funding programme, or committee needs structured review, for example internal grant triage or thesis-proposal assessment, the practical starting points are a journal-style workflow or an event with a call for submissions, depending on whether the output is publication or selection.