AIR Forum Virtual

Call for Proposals is Closed for the 2021 AIR Forum Virtual

Thank you to those who submitted a proposal to present virtually in 2021. Our review process will take place December 2020 – January 2021. Final proposal status notifications will be sent in February 2021.

About the Review Process

AIR member volunteers evaluate session proposals using a standard rubric. Each proposal receives a minimum of five reviews to achieve a draw (interest) and quality score. Proposals are then ranked based upon these scores, space availability, and the overall mix of the content for the conference program. The volunteer Program Committee then reviews the accepted sessions holistically for a suitable mix of topics across the program. 


Check out the frequently asked questions below. If you still need assistance, email or call us at 850-391-6345. 

Important Dates

Dec –
Jan 2021
Proposal reviews and session acceptance decisions
Final proposal status notifications sent
April 2,
Deadline to upload Scholarly Paper for conference proceedings and session listing

Presenter registration deadline
May 7,
Deadline to upload presentation resources
May 25–28,
AIR Forum Virtual

    Call for Proposals FAQ

    • Q: Are there ever conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors?
      A: Reviewers are randomly assigned to specific proposals and so there is the potential for a reviewer to be assigned a proposal in which he/she has a personal stake or close connection. Reviewers declare conflicts of interest, when they arise, and are reassigned to other proposals. AIR trusts reviewers to decide what constitutes a conflict of interest that would create an unfair review environment and to recuse themselves from evaluating such proposals. 
    • Q: Can I edit my proposal after it has been submitted?
      A: Once you submit your proposal you will not be able to make any further changes. To ensure accuracy, we strongly suggest that you select "Save As Draft" and review your proposal before submitting.   
    • Q: How are proposals selected for acceptance?

      A: Proposals are evaluated by volunteer reviewers using a rubric that includes ratings from session quality and potential popularity. Proposals are then ranked based on reviewer ratings. Each proposal receives a minimum of five reviews. Reviewers must have attended a prior AIR Forum and experienced firsthand the quality and range of sessions offered at AIR Forum.

      Because there are usually more high-quality proposals than space available, additional screening is required to reduce the number of sessions and balance the overall program in terms of topics and sector representation. It is unfortunate, but space limitations usually mean that some high-quality sessions are not accepted. 

    • Q: What is the role of the AIR Forum Program Committee?
      A: This volunteer member group reviews the accepted sessions holistically for a suitable mix of topics across the program and breaks ties between proposal scores as needed. This committee is advisory to the Executive Office on all aspects of assuring that the educational program at the AIR Forum meets the needs of members and maximizes the learning for our attendees. 
    • Q: When are proposal presenters notified of the selection outcome?
      A: Proposal authors will be notified in January/February of their proposal acceptance status.
    • Q: Why are proposals evaluated through a single-blind review process?
      A: This process ensures that reviewers are not revealed to the session authors. Session authors, however, are revealed to reviewers. The single-blind review process was implemented in 2012 as part of a series of efforts to improve the consistency of quality sessions at AIR Forum.   

      A successful concurrent session requires great content and organization, as well as a presenter who has the background and experience to handle the topic. The single-blind review allows presenters to share their backgrounds, affiliations, and any other evidence of their expertise with reviewers. Often, it is critical to know that a presenter has access to data or technologies. The single-blind review puts all presenters on a level playing field to build the case for their expertise.   

      Why does AIR use a double-blind review for publications and a single-blind review for AIR Forum sessions? When reviewing a print manuscript, the full evidence of the author’s proficiency in the topic is evident in the document itself. Reviewers have the actual product to review. In AIR Forum session reviews, however, there is only a brief description and “promise” of what will be delivered. The presenter’s capacity to fulfill the promise is legitimately part of the selection process.