Submit to the Intended Call | Review the Track List | Review the Proposal Formatting Instructions | Understanding the Rubric
Effective as of 2020, the Program Committee has overhauled the proposal submission process. We highly encourage everyone who is interested in submitting a proposal read through the information below.
The following applies to both Developers Day+ and the Annual Meeting, unless otherwise specified:
- Proposals may be made by either an individual or a group. All co-presenters must be included in the proposal at time of submission to ensure no scheduling conflicts.
- Co-authors in your proposal may be co-presenters; however, please do not list them as a speaker if they do not plan on attending. Co-author credits may be on the slides and/or ELUNA document repository
- Panel session proposals are welcome for consideration; however, please be sure to indicate it is a panel in the proposal form.
- Sessions may have up to 4 co-presenters or panelists. For panels, the moderator is not included in this count.
- Developers Day+ consists of a day-and-a-half of content and collaboration ahead of the ELUNA Annual Meeting. It’s an event for systems administrators, customizers, and developers to network, show what they have been working on, and learn both from coders at other ELUNA Member institutions and from Ex Libris. It’s a community exercise for implementers, by implementers.
- Calls for Developers Day+ workshops and lightning talks/presentations are separate, so be sure you’re submitting to the intended call!
- All breakout sessions are 45 minutes long with the exception of plenaries — a typical breakout session is 30-35 minutes of presentation and 10-15 minutes for questions and follow-up commentary
Submit to the Intended Call
Would you rather present at Developers Day+ instead of the Annual Meeting? Or vice versa? Please make sure that you’re submitting to the call you want your proposal to be considered for. Proposals are not transferable between calls so any proposals submitted to the other call have to be resubmitted.
Review the Track List
The Program Committee recently made extensive revisions to the conference tracks for the Annual Meeting. Your proposal can be designated for only one track.
- A/I / Emerging Technologies and Standards
- Digital Initiatives
- Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Accessibility (DEIA)
- Practical Applications
- Gold Sponsor
Review the Proposal Formatting Instructions
Proposal Title: Titles should be no longer than 15 words, proofed for spelling and typos, and capitalized in title case. You may use this title case converter as needed.
Example: Alma and Your Library: Best Practices
Proposal Abstract: Abstracts should be no longer than 150 words. Please proof your abstract for spelling and typos.
Track: Choose the program track that most closely aligns with your proposal.
Applicable Ex Libris Product: Tag the products that your proposal directly relates to. You may tag more than one product. Select ‘None-General’ for strategy-oriented proposals.
Target Audience: Select up to 2 skills levels to ensure that your presentation will reach the right audience if your proposal is accepted. (Annual Meeting only)
Learning Outcomes: Please provide at least one learning outcome. (Annual Meeting only)
Supplying learning outcomes not only helps the Program Committee make informed decisions regarding proposal acceptance, but it is also allows attendees to make informed decisions when picking sessions during the meeting! When developing your proposal, consider what specifically you want attendees to learn at your session. A well-written learning outcome uses verbs that are specific and actionable and avoids broad verbs such as “understand” or “appreciate.”
- At the end of this session, participants will be able to perform basic Alma normalization rules.
- At the end of the session, participants will be able to describe the Primo road map.
For more tips on writing good learning outcomes, here are some suggested resources:
- Guidelines for Writing Learning Objectives
- Using Bloom’s Taxonomy to Write Effective Learning Objectives
Presenters: List all speakers who will be physically present and participate in the session. Panel members are considered presenters and are listed here. It is strongly preferred that panel members are arranged by time of proposal submission.
Panel Moderators: If you are submitting a proposal for a panel, please list the moderator here.
Co-Authors: List a co-author if there are contributors to the proposal or presentation content but will not be presenting themselves. Co-authors will only be listed on online schedule on ELUNA website and not in printed program or Sched.
Understanding the Rubric
The Program Committee reviewers (representatives from ELUNA working groups and/or appointees by the Program Committee Chair and Developers Day+ Chair) will review and rate each proposal with the following criteria:
|1 Needs Improvement
|0 Not enough information
The title fits the abstract description and meets the word count requirement
|The title generally describes the session in a way that generates attendee interest
|The title generally describes the session
|The title is vague or doesn’t align with abstract
The abstract clearly describes the session, is mostly free of typos/errors, and meets the word count requirement
|The abstract clearly and succinctly describes the session while generating attendee interest; is well-organized, requires no additional proofing
|The abstract generally describes the session; may have some minor errors to be fixed; may need some adjustment to sentence flow
|The abstract has multiple spelling and typos, is not descriptive enough, or doesn’t align with title
The learning outcomes clearly describe the anticipated outcomes for attendees of skills or knowledge gained from the session
|Learning outcomes clearly and succinctly describe the anticipated outcomes of the session and generate attendee interest
|Learning outcomes adequately describe the anticipated outcomes of the session
|Learning outcomes are not clear or hard to understand
|No learning outcomes
|Metadata (Track, Applicable Products, Audience, Panel)
The metadata to assist organizing the session in the program is present and fits the title/description
|Metadata is provided for every area; proposal content fits selected track, products, or target audience
|Metadata is provided for every area; proposal content fits selected track, products, or target audience; may need some revision
|Some metadata is provided, but not all; proposal content does not fit selected track, products, or target audience
|No metadata provided
|The proposal is of high relevance to current or emerging issues in the profession, Ex Libris products, or the conference theme
|The proposal is relevant to the profession, Ex Libris products, or the conference theme
|The proposal does not appear to have value for the program content; is unclear; topic appears to be already addressed in a higher quality proposal
|The proposal is irrelevant; topic relevance is unclear or obsolete