Newsletter /
HINTS and TIPS from the Conference Coordinators:
Selection of Papers for the Conference
NISPAcee continuously aims to improve the quality of the papers presented at the conference and the quality of NISPAcee publications. The major responsibility in this regard falls on the Coordinators and Chairs of Working Groups and other conference sessions, who work on the selection of papers to be presented at the conference, the final programme of sessions at the conference based on the delivered papers prior to the conference, comments for improvement of the papers delivered, and evaluation of the final papers, considering which of them could be published in book format, either with a volume from a Working Group or conference proceedings or the NISPAcee Journal. This work, by the coordinators, who also serve as editors of the aforementioned books, and their professional input, is vitally important to the improvements we wish to see in the Conference and NISPAcee outcomes.
On the other hand, researchers, applicants with papers, authors of full papers and others from the NISPAcee region could benefit from the valuable experience of these experts. Their recommendations, instructions, advice or suggestions could help in the improvement of the quality of the submitted abstract and papers in the future. Therefore, we have decided to ask them to share their experiences with the large NISPAcee community.
First, we have asked them ten questions dealing with the selection of papers for the conference. Later, we plan to continue in this endeavour with questions concerning the full papers, presentations at the conference, and publishing of the papers etc.
For the first round of questions we received responses from the following coordinators of the upcoming conference:
Mzia Mikeladze, (MM), Caucasus University, Georgia: General Session
Juraj Nemec, (JN), Matej Bel University, Slovakia: WG on Fiscal Policy
Lucie Sedmihradska, (LS), University of Economics of Prague, Czech Republic: WG on Fiscal Policy
Hans Rieger, (HR), DBB Akademie, Germany: WG on Civil Service
Eugenius Chlivickas, (ECH), Training Centre of the Ministry of Finance, Lithuania: WG on PA Studies and Training Systems
Sander Pollumae, (SP), Estonian Academy of Security Sciences, Estonia: WG on Adminístration & Management of Internal Security Agencies
Diana C. Iancu (DCI)), National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania: WG on PA Reform
We believe NISPAcee readers will enjoy the reading their answers:
Questions:
1. How do you feel when you finish your selection - satisfied /dissatisfied and why?
MM: Overall, I feel satisfied, as the quality of the selected papers of permanent participants show gradual improvement. This will influence the quality of the final papers and presentations.
JN: Partially satisfied – quantity is more than satisfactory; quality is improving, but slowly.
HR: Satisfied, because many new ideas, especially from young professionals, are always welcome.
ECH: I feel satisfied when there are sufficient abstracts and where there is the possibility to have a choice.
SP: As it is a new working group, the hopes of receiving a large number of papers should not be too high. I hope that in a few years’ time the topic will receive more interest and attention from researchers of public administration and that it will provide valuable outside expertise to agencies of internal security of the participating countries.
2. What do you think influences most your decision to accept a paper proposal?
MM: There are several factors which influence the final decision: relevance of the topic of the paper to NISPAcee; importance of the topic to public administration in the NISPAcee region; structure of the abstract; clarity of the problem; presence of a description of research methods, and clarity of expression of ideas and language.
JN: The main concern is the contents – the author has to define the research goal and how it can be achieved. There are also certain "soft” criteria, as is the case everywhere (such as name and region).
HR: Clear objectives and some practical solutions.
ECH: The methodologically substantiated the paper proposal.
SP: In addition to the basic criteria set up in the Call for Papers, I try to understand if the author enjoys the topic and is interested in the research.
DCI: The potential the research shows: was that kind of research question addressed in the same context, can it produce interesting results, is the author capable of conducting such an investigation?
3. What is, according to your thinking, the best abstract?
MM: An abstract that has a clear and concrete problem, which describes what is done by others and how the problem relates to real life; what are the research methods that will be used and what is the hypothesis.
LS: One paragraph which clearly states what the author wants to achieve and how he/she will do this. Then both of us, the author and me, know what the author will present at the conference.
ECH: The best abstract is one that is well-structured and consistent with the WG theme.
SP: The best abstract meets the objectives set up in the Call for Papers, is well structured and is comparable with other papers which will be presented – it is expected to provide a good common ground for discussion amongst participants.
DCI: I’m not sure about "the best”, so I will settle with "an eligible abstract”; and to meet the eligibility criterion, an abstract would need to: 1) properly fit into the Call for papers; 2) have a promising research question and a well-structured research design, and 3) be written in no more than one page.
4. Do you think there is a common major weakness of the proposed papers/abstracts and if so, what?
MM: A fair number of abstracts have a very vague structure, sometimes going into too much detail of the problem and never mentioning how the research will be carried out and what methods will be used. Some abstracts are too general and never give a clear idea of what the goal of the research is. Quite a few abstracts are written in poor English and it becomes difficult to understand what the author(s) want(s) to say.
JN: There are still authors who do not understand the term "scientific paper”. We no longer meet to repeat existing theories.
LS: Authors focus too much on the description of the issue and say too little or even nothing about the proposed paper. There is no clearly stated objective and a description of the methods is often missing.
ECH: There is no strict requirement for the proposed papers/abstracts.
SP: I did not notice any common weaknesses, but it is a fact that authors from different regions and schools approach issues differently.
DCI: No, not really. It is true, however, that sometimes authors seem to neglect the Call for papers and send their research outcomes regardless of the proposed theme of the Conference.
5. What would be your suggestion to applicants for the improvement of their proposals in the future?
JN: Few people can write real theoretical papers. So, manage your own serious (field) research and present its results properly.
LS: Write less. Give us an idea of what to expect. As the papers are rarely written at the moment of submission of the abstract, describe your plan.
HR: Shorter description about methods and preconditions. Be clear what the message is.
ECH: Formulate the requirements for the improvement of their proposals in future.
SP: Put your ideas and your interest in research into the framework set up for the working group.
6. What mistakes do the applicants make in the development of their abstracts?
HR: Too broad a history and background and too short conclusions and results. Too academic, unclear in the main message.
ECH: Frequently, the applicants focus too much on the detail and pay less attention to the major subject.
SP: Applicant's mistakes might be that they concentrate more on their own research and less on their cooperation with the working group. It would be useful if the applicant were to read some papers from the previous year and consider the Call for Papers before drafting their own paper.
DCI:
7. Are abstracts typically sectioned in recommended sub-headings (Background, Introduction, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions) or are they more unstructured abstracts?
LS: I cannot recall any structured abstract being submitted to "my” working group since 2007, when I became involved.
ECH: In our opinion, this is exactly what is missing.
DCI: As far as my short experience goes, unstructured abstracts prevail.
8. How do you approach the selection procedure? Could you disclose some secrets?
JN: As already mentioned, the author has to define the research goal and how to achieve it, as clearly and briefly as possible. If this is done, the decision is fast and automatic (supposing that the topic is relevant).
LS: I try to accept any reasonable paper which fits into the area of interest of the Working Group.
DCI: The first step in the selection process and "the secret” to be disclosed is that before starting selection I carefully read all the received abstracts. That helps me put applications in context and have a better start in the evaluation process.
9. Do you think the applicant’s CV is relevant to the final decision on the paper proposal?
MM: The quality of the abstract is the major factor that defines the fate of the abstract. Sometimes the applicant’s CV is helpful. However, for me, it definitely has supplementary importance.
JN: Also already indicated – in some cases experienced researchers do not submit the best abstracts, but we need them to facilitate discussion.
LS: In the case of young authors (students or Ph.D. candidates) I have "turned a blind eye” a few times.
HR: No, we had good ideas from students as well as from Professors and PHD candidates.
ECH: Some points in the CV relating to the subject of the paper proposal would be appropriate.
SP: The applicant's CV is less relevant if the abstract is good and shows promise. If the abstract itself is unclear, the CV might provide some extra credits so that the author is able to finish the research and provide an interesting paper.
DCI: I believe that a well-structured CV is a relevant part of the selection procedure, because it may show, for instance, if the applicant has worked with or researched on the topic proposed for consideration or if there are other relevant results published already.
10. Do abstracts highlight the major points covered by the paper?
MM: To my regret, in many cases, unfortunately no.
SP: Sometimes abstracts that are written before the research itself has been carried out tend to be more wishful thinking, but most authors are experts in their field and are able to point out the main problems and make a point based on their previous research, even if the research described in the abstract has not yet been completed.
DCI: The good ones, always do.
Selection of Papers for the Conference
NISPAcee continuously aims to improve the quality of the papers presented at the conference and the quality of NISPAcee publications. The major responsibility in this regard falls on the Coordinators and Chairs of Working Groups and other conference sessions, who work on the selection of papers to be presented at the conference, the final programme of sessions at the conference based on the delivered papers prior to the conference, comments for improvement of the papers delivered, and evaluation of the final papers, considering which of them could be published in book format, either with a volume from a Working Group or conference proceedings or the NISPAcee Journal. This work, by the coordinators, who also serve as editors of the aforementioned books, and their professional input, is vitally important to the improvements we wish to see in the Conference and NISPAcee outcomes.
On the other hand, researchers, applicants with papers, authors of full papers and others from the NISPAcee region could benefit from the valuable experience of these experts. Their recommendations, instructions, advice or suggestions could help in the improvement of the quality of the submitted abstract and papers in the future. Therefore, we have decided to ask them to share their experiences with the large NISPAcee community.
First, we have asked them ten questions dealing with the selection of papers for the conference. Later, we plan to continue in this endeavour with questions concerning the full papers, presentations at the conference, and publishing of the papers etc.
For the first round of questions we received responses from the following coordinators of the upcoming conference:
Mzia Mikeladze, (MM), Caucasus University, Georgia: General Session
Juraj Nemec, (JN), Matej Bel University, Slovakia: WG on Fiscal Policy
Lucie Sedmihradska, (LS), University of Economics of Prague, Czech Republic: WG on Fiscal Policy
Hans Rieger, (HR), DBB Akademie, Germany: WG on Civil Service
Eugenius Chlivickas, (ECH), Training Centre of the Ministry of Finance, Lithuania: WG on PA Studies and Training Systems
Sander Pollumae, (SP), Estonian Academy of Security Sciences, Estonia: WG on Adminístration & Management of Internal Security Agencies
Diana C. Iancu (DCI)), National School of Political Studies and Public Administration, Bucharest, Romania: WG on PA Reform
We believe NISPAcee readers will enjoy the reading their answers:
Questions:
1. How do you feel when you finish your selection - satisfied /dissatisfied and why?
MM: Overall, I feel satisfied, as the quality of the selected papers of permanent participants show gradual improvement. This will influence the quality of the final papers and presentations.
JN: Partially satisfied – quantity is more than satisfactory; quality is improving, but slowly.
HR: Satisfied, because many new ideas, especially from young professionals, are always welcome.
ECH: I feel satisfied when there are sufficient abstracts and where there is the possibility to have a choice.
SP: As it is a new working group, the hopes of receiving a large number of papers should not be too high. I hope that in a few years’ time the topic will receive more interest and attention from researchers of public administration and that it will provide valuable outside expertise to agencies of internal security of the participating countries.
2. What do you think influences most your decision to accept a paper proposal?
MM: There are several factors which influence the final decision: relevance of the topic of the paper to NISPAcee; importance of the topic to public administration in the NISPAcee region; structure of the abstract; clarity of the problem; presence of a description of research methods, and clarity of expression of ideas and language.
JN: The main concern is the contents – the author has to define the research goal and how it can be achieved. There are also certain "soft” criteria, as is the case everywhere (such as name and region).
HR: Clear objectives and some practical solutions.
ECH: The methodologically substantiated the paper proposal.
SP: In addition to the basic criteria set up in the Call for Papers, I try to understand if the author enjoys the topic and is interested in the research.
DCI: The potential the research shows: was that kind of research question addressed in the same context, can it produce interesting results, is the author capable of conducting such an investigation?
3. What is, according to your thinking, the best abstract?
MM: An abstract that has a clear and concrete problem, which describes what is done by others and how the problem relates to real life; what are the research methods that will be used and what is the hypothesis.
LS: One paragraph which clearly states what the author wants to achieve and how he/she will do this. Then both of us, the author and me, know what the author will present at the conference.
ECH: The best abstract is one that is well-structured and consistent with the WG theme.
SP: The best abstract meets the objectives set up in the Call for Papers, is well structured and is comparable with other papers which will be presented – it is expected to provide a good common ground for discussion amongst participants.
DCI: I’m not sure about "the best”, so I will settle with "an eligible abstract”; and to meet the eligibility criterion, an abstract would need to: 1) properly fit into the Call for papers; 2) have a promising research question and a well-structured research design, and 3) be written in no more than one page.
4. Do you think there is a common major weakness of the proposed papers/abstracts and if so, what?
MM: A fair number of abstracts have a very vague structure, sometimes going into too much detail of the problem and never mentioning how the research will be carried out and what methods will be used. Some abstracts are too general and never give a clear idea of what the goal of the research is. Quite a few abstracts are written in poor English and it becomes difficult to understand what the author(s) want(s) to say.
JN: There are still authors who do not understand the term "scientific paper”. We no longer meet to repeat existing theories.
LS: Authors focus too much on the description of the issue and say too little or even nothing about the proposed paper. There is no clearly stated objective and a description of the methods is often missing.
ECH: There is no strict requirement for the proposed papers/abstracts.
SP: I did not notice any common weaknesses, but it is a fact that authors from different regions and schools approach issues differently.
DCI: No, not really. It is true, however, that sometimes authors seem to neglect the Call for papers and send their research outcomes regardless of the proposed theme of the Conference.
5. What would be your suggestion to applicants for the improvement of their proposals in the future?
JN: Few people can write real theoretical papers. So, manage your own serious (field) research and present its results properly.
LS: Write less. Give us an idea of what to expect. As the papers are rarely written at the moment of submission of the abstract, describe your plan.
HR: Shorter description about methods and preconditions. Be clear what the message is.
ECH: Formulate the requirements for the improvement of their proposals in future.
SP: Put your ideas and your interest in research into the framework set up for the working group.
DCI: Keep it within the Call for papers. Say what (research question) and how (methodology) about your research. Explain why your research is relevant.
6. What mistakes do the applicants make in the development of their abstracts?
HR: Too broad a history and background and too short conclusions and results. Too academic, unclear in the main message.
ECH: Frequently, the applicants focus too much on the detail and pay less attention to the major subject.
SP: Applicant's mistakes might be that they concentrate more on their own research and less on their cooperation with the working group. It would be useful if the applicant were to read some papers from the previous year and consider the Call for Papers before drafting their own paper.
DCI:
1. They do not take into consideration the Call for papers.
2. They do not clearly state their research questions and methodology.
3. They fail to explain why their research makes a difference.
7. Are abstracts typically sectioned in recommended sub-headings (Background, Introduction, Objectives, Methods, Results, and Conclusions) or are they more unstructured abstracts?
LS: I cannot recall any structured abstract being submitted to "my” working group since 2007, when I became involved.
ECH: In our opinion, this is exactly what is missing.
DCI: As far as my short experience goes, unstructured abstracts prevail.
8. How do you approach the selection procedure? Could you disclose some secrets?
JN: As already mentioned, the author has to define the research goal and how to achieve it, as clearly and briefly as possible. If this is done, the decision is fast and automatic (supposing that the topic is relevant).
LS: I try to accept any reasonable paper which fits into the area of interest of the Working Group.
DCI: The first step in the selection process and "the secret” to be disclosed is that before starting selection I carefully read all the received abstracts. That helps me put applications in context and have a better start in the evaluation process.
9. Do you think the applicant’s CV is relevant to the final decision on the paper proposal?
MM: The quality of the abstract is the major factor that defines the fate of the abstract. Sometimes the applicant’s CV is helpful. However, for me, it definitely has supplementary importance.
JN: Also already indicated – in some cases experienced researchers do not submit the best abstracts, but we need them to facilitate discussion.
LS: In the case of young authors (students or Ph.D. candidates) I have "turned a blind eye” a few times.
HR: No, we had good ideas from students as well as from Professors and PHD candidates.
ECH: Some points in the CV relating to the subject of the paper proposal would be appropriate.
SP: The applicant's CV is less relevant if the abstract is good and shows promise. If the abstract itself is unclear, the CV might provide some extra credits so that the author is able to finish the research and provide an interesting paper.
DCI: I believe that a well-structured CV is a relevant part of the selection procedure, because it may show, for instance, if the applicant has worked with or researched on the topic proposed for consideration or if there are other relevant results published already.
10. Do abstracts highlight the major points covered by the paper?
MM: To my regret, in many cases, unfortunately no.
SP: Sometimes abstracts that are written before the research itself has been carried out tend to be more wishful thinking, but most authors are experts in their field and are able to point out the main problems and make a point based on their previous research, even if the research described in the abstract has not yet been completed.
DCI: The good ones, always do.
Price: 
