Submissions will be evaluated by two independent reviewers appointed by the Scientific Program Committee, according to the following criteria. In the case of thematic papers, good practice papers and posters, the authors, and in the case of symposia, the symposium chairs receive the results of the evaluation and the reasons for it. Separate criteria will be used to evaluate theoretical/empirical research and good practice papers (to be declared by the author at the time of uploading) and the symposium summary.

1. Theoretical/pedagogical background
2. Discussion of theory
3. Aspects of analysis and their relevance
4. Originality
5. Overall quality, structure and style
6. Theoretical and empirical relevance

1. Theoretical/pedagogical background
2. Aims, research questions and hypotheses
3. Research methodology
4. Presentation and interpretation of results
5. Overall quality, structure and style
6. Theoretical and empirical relevance

1. Aims
2. Coherence
3. Overall quality, structure and style
4. Theoretical and empirical relevance

1. Context of the program/project/innovation, roles of the participants and creators, activities
2. Defining objectives for development
3. Creativity in student activities, and/or improvisational elements in the activity, other pedagogical values of the program (e.g. complexity, talent development)
4. Impact analysis of the program/project (self-assessment, results analysis, quality assurance, etc.), adaptability
5. Professionalism of the description (abstract), displaying history, style, professional language

1. Context of the program/project/innovation, roles of the participants and creators, activities
2. Defining development objectives
3. Creativity in student activities, and/or improvisational elements in the activity, other pedagogical values of the program (e.g. complexity, talent development)
4. Impact analysis of the program/project (self-assessment, results analysis, quality assurance, etc.), adaptability
5. Professionalism of the description (abstract), displaying history, style, linguistic formalization

In each category, reviewers rate papers between 0 and 5 points (thus, a maximum of 25 points can be obtained for presentations and posters, and a maximum of 20 points for symposium summaries), and may include an optional short written evaluation. If there is a difference of more than 10 points between the total scores of the two reviewers, the Scientific Program Committee will invite a third reviewer to evaluate the paper.

The final decision on acceptance will be made by the Scientific Program Committee, based on the total points given by the reviewers. The decision may be (1) accepted; (2) rejected; (3) reclassified. Reclassification means that a symposium paper may be included in the program as a paper presentation, or a paper as a poster. In case of reclassified papers, authors may declare via e-mail (mpk2025@mte.eu) whether they wish to present their work in the suggested format.

Acceptance does not automatically imply publication in the book of abstracts. This will only happen on the condition that the participant pays the conference fee by the deadline.