Transparency

For the ICCG 2015 we received 400 proposals accounting for about 600 persons; paper authors and co-authors, and panelists in pre-organized panels. These included 46 nationalities a third of which were non-OECD applicants.

 

CONFERENCE SIZE

Initially we had planned to cap the size of the conference by 300 persons, including team and organization staff. Following the large number of applications we decided to expand the conference to include 400 persons. Unfortunately, this still meant that we could not accept all qualifying proposals.


PROPOSAL EVALUATION

The revision of proposals was distributed amongst 9 teams (three reviewers each) from our Scientific Committee divided according to the announced themes. Selection size per sub-theme was relative to the total number of applications received per sub-theme; e.g. the “Migration, Mobility and Displacement” sub-theme received 15% of the applications, and therewith was given 15% of the total available space. Needless to say, this was a guiding principle but not an equation for inflexible numbers. Quality of selected submissions was cross-compared with proposal evaluations across all sub-themes, and where necessary space-allocation per sub-theme was (slightly) amended.

Proposals were peer-reviewed to rank these according to strength, clarity of problem statement, methodological approach, and relevance to the particular ICCG 2015 Theme. This step produced the pre-final lists. Furthermore, members of the scientific committee revised applications a second time considering ‘topic priority’ (i.e. relevance and uniqueness of topic/approach), and additional considerations for inclusiveness (young researchers, Non-OECD applicants, etc.)

Therewith the selection announced on 20 January 2015 invited 385 persons to register, 70% OECD and 30% non-OECD; 30% senior and 70% junior researchers and activists; and 55% of which women.


GRANT EVALUATION

We received 106 applications for the 25 Grants we had managed to fundraise and announced on this website. Here selection was made through three ‘filters’. First, a blind peer review of Motivation Letters produced a pre-final list. These scores were then added to the candidate’s proposal review. Second, we considered the candidate’s ‘location’  (i.e. trip expense in relation to conference location). In the third filter, we revised top candidates in relation to indicated financial condition (i.e. whether an applicant has a paid or unpaid position). Following the principle of inclusion, none of the applicants were offered more than 1 grant.


Therewith the selection announced on 1 February 2015 distributed the Grants on 25 persons from 13 nationalities;  56% OECD and 44% non-OECD; and 60% of which females.