Please read all instructions carefully before you begin.
Review must be completed by 5:00 PM ET on Friday, May 26, 2023

Paper Review and Decision Timeline

  • May 9: Call for Content Closes
  • May 11: Review Site Opens
  • May 11 – 26: Review/score submissions
  • May 26: Review site closes at 5:00 pm ET
  • May 30 & 31: Scores and comments, compiled and averaged.
  • June 1: Send to committee to review prior to meeting
  • June 8: Planning Committee review submissions, scores, and comments as a team, makes final decision, and slate paper into BakingTECH 2024 schedule
  • July:  Authors notified of submission status


If you haven’t already done so, take a moment to review the submission guidelines, submission requirements and topics that were communicated to the authors in the Call for Content.  Take these into consideration when you score the submissions.


You will use the online grading program for reviewing and scoring all of the submissions.

You have two options for reviewing the submissions:

  1. You can review the proposals online and then as you review you can assign each submission a score and add additional comments.  If you leave the online grading system, you will be able to re-enter through your specific link sent to you via survey monkey and start where you left off.
  2. You may print the proposals, read them off-line and then return to the online review system to record your scores and comments.

You may download and print the submission by clicking the below links:


All reviewers should use the online grader to enter scores, comments and recommendations.

  • The review process must be completed by 5:00 pm ET on May 26, 2023.
  • The content of all submissions is to be kept confidential and authors should not be contacted.

Scores and comments will be compiled, averaged and transmitted to the Planning Committee for your review as a team prior to June 1 .  The Planning Committee will meet to finalize submissions on June 8.

Key points to remember

  • Use the entire scale from 1 to 7; if you give all submissions 4s and 5s, you may be unable to identify the best papers.
  • The best submission present data or tell a story that is new, true and important.

Avoid a potential conflict of interest

It is recommended that you recuse yourself from scoring a submission if  you meet one of the following criteria:

  • If you work in the same department or company as the author
  • If you have a professional connection to the work presented in the submission


Grade all submissions assigning a score 1 (worst) to 7 (outstanding).

  1. Unacceptable – Do not accept
  2. Poor – Borderline Acceptability
  3. Fair – Acceptable
  4. Good – Solid
  5. Very Good – Excellent
  6. Excellent – Outstanding
  7. Outstanding – Best Submissions

Ratings 4 – 7: Imply that the submission is worthy of presentation
Ratings 2 – 3: Might still merit presentation if the existing literature on topic is inconsistent or meager, or if observation is potentially provocative.
Rating 1: Implies strongly that the submission must not be presented.


You may “weigh” the following characteristics as you see fit.  For example, the importance of the topic might be considered so great as to outweigh some problems with “research design.”  Or, the design may be so inadequate that despite the importance of the topic the paper is borderline acceptable or unacceptable.

All criteria listed below will use the above score/rating scale unless noted.

  1. Originality:  Were novel concepts, ideas or approaches used?  Does the submission challenge existing paradigms or develop new methodologies or technologies?  If the submission presents an extension or replication of previous work or presentation, is the new study better than previous ones, and therefore adds genuinely new information to present knowledge.
  2. Relevant:  Is the subject matter addressed in this presentation appropriate or important to the industry?
  3. Appeal:  Is this presentation likely to appeal to conference attendees?
  4. Clarity: Submission demonstrates that the author can present the topic in a clear and appropriate manner.  Keep in mind the language and grammatical errors.  If the author didn’t invest the time to check for language and grammatical errors – how much investment will they put into developing the full presentation?
  5. Commercialism: Do you feel that this presentation is a commercial presentation, sales pitch/product demonstration?  Rate Scale/Score: Yes or No
  6. Overall score/rating of submission

All the above will require a score/rating when completing a review of the submission.  You will be requested to submit additional comments (see below) of the submission.  Additional comments are not required but they are strongly encouraged.

  • Weaknesses of Submission
  • Strengths of Submission
  • Overall Comments

Planning Committee