Apply for Collaboration
The Criterion: An International Journal in English · Conference Collaboration Programme
Submitting a Collaboration Proposal
Conference organisers who have read the Programme Documentation and consider their conference a suitable candidate for collaboration with The Criterion are invited to submit a formal proposal through the RCELL online application portal. The portal is the only accepted submission channel; proposals submitted by email or through any other route will not be processed.
The online form is the complete submission instrument — there is no separate document to complete and return. Before opening the form, organisers are strongly encouraged to download the Conference Proposal Template from the Programme Documents page and read through it carefully. The template mirrors the form’s structure exactly and serves as a preparation guide, allowing organisers to draft and review responses before entering them into the portal. Partially completed forms cannot always be saved for later return in all browser environments, so arriving prepared makes a significant practical difference.
Submission of a proposal does not constitute an agreement to collaborate. Approval of a proposal does not constitute a commitment to publish a special issue. Both remain contingent on the editorial assessment process and, where a collaboration is approved, on the scholarly quality of manuscripts submitted for peer review.
Before You Open the Form
The application form collects all required information for a full collaboration proposal in a single, structured submission. The following checklist covers what to have ready before you begin. Organisers who arrive at the form prepared will find the process straightforward; those who open the form without preparation may find it difficult to complete in a single session.
Information to Prepare
You will need the full title, theme, dates, format, and venue or platform of your conference; the name, type, country, and website of the lead organising institution; full details of the Primary Convenor including institutional email address and, where available, ORCID identifier; names, affiliations, and roles of all organising committee members; a substantive account of the conference’s scholarly rationale and its relevance to the scope of The Criterion; a description of the conference review or screening process; estimated participation and submission figures; and full details of the nominated Guest Editor or Editors.
Documents to Upload
The form includes upload fields for the following: a formal call for papers or conference programme; academic profiles or curricula vitae for the Primary Convenor and all nominated Guest Editors; and an official letter of authorisation or endorsement from the lead institution on institutional letterhead. Supplementary documents — such as evidence of programme committee membership or prior conference outcomes — may also be uploaded where relevant. All documents should be in PDF format where possible.
Scope Alignment
Before submitting, confirm that the conference theme is substantively aligned with the published scope of The Criterion, which encompasses English literature across all periods and genres, literary theory and criticism, world and comparative literature, Indian writing in English, postcolonial studies, cultural studies, linguistics, English language teaching, digital humanities, and interdisciplinary humanities research with a clear connection to English studies. Proposals whose thematic alignment cannot be clearly articulated are unlikely to meet the evaluation criteria.
Access the Application Portal
The RCELL Conference Collaboration Programme application portal is accessible via the link below. The form collects all required proposal information in a single structured submission and includes upload fields for supporting documents. Before opening the form, download the Conference Proposal Template from the Programme Documents page — it mirrors the form’s structure exactly and is the most effective preparation tool available.
Submit a Collaboration Proposal
Queries that cannot be resolved by consulting the Programme Documentation may be directed to the Editor-in-Chief of The Criterion through the contact details available at rcell.co.in. The editorial office cannot provide an informal pre-assessment of proposals before submission.
Programme Documents
The following documents are available for download from the Programme Documents page. All parties are expected to read the documents relevant to their role before the collaboration commences.
For Conference Organisers — Read Before Applying
The Conference Proposal Template is the essential preparation document for this form. It lists every question the form asks in the same order and is designed to be completed offline before the form is opened. Downloading and working through the template before submitting will significantly improve the quality and completeness of the proposal. The template is a preparation and reference tool; the online form is the submission instrument. The Collaboration Agreement should also be reviewed before applying — it provides the fullest account of the commitments that approval of a collaboration entails. The Guest Editor Guidelines should be read before nominating a Guest Editor.
For Guest Editors
The Guest Editor Guidelines govern the Guest Editor role in its entirety and must be read and formally accepted as a condition of appointment. The Special Issue Review Protocol provides a complete account of the peer review and editorial management process, and the Publication Ethics and Peer Review Framework sets out the ethical standards to which all parties in the special issue process are held.
For Invited Authors
The Extended Paper Requirements define the standard of scholarly development a conference paper must reach before it is eligible for submission to the special issue. The Manuscript Submission Standards specify all formatting, length, and citation requirements. Both documents should be read before preparing a manuscript.
What to Expect After Submission
Acknowledgement of receipt is issued by the editorial office within ten working days of a complete proposal submission. The editorial board will communicate a decision within sixty days of receipt. Proposals are evaluated on a rolling basis; there are no fixed application rounds or annual deadlines, and proposals may be submitted at any time provided the conference dates and proposed timeline allow adequate time for the submission, review, and production processes required to produce a published special issue.
The four possible outcomes of the evaluation process are: approval, which initiates the process of executing a Collaboration Agreement; approval subject to specified conditions, which requires the organiser to respond satisfactorily to identified queries before the collaboration is confirmed; a request for further information, where the proposal cannot be determined on the available evidence; or decline, where the proposal does not meet the programme’s academic and ethical standards. Declined proposals may be resubmitted following a material revision; resubmissions that do not address the grounds for the original decision will not be re-evaluated.
Where a collaboration is approved, the next steps — confirming the Guest Editor appointment, executing the Collaboration Agreement, establishing the submission portal, and agreeing on the communication arrangements with conference participants — are managed by the editorial office in sequence. The full collaboration process, from approval through to publication, is described on the Special Issue Workflow and Policies page.
Contact
All queries relating to the Conference Collaboration Programme should be directed to The Criterion’s editorial office via the contact details available at rcell.co.in. Organisers are asked to consult the Programme Documentation before contacting the editorial office, as the majority of questions that arise at the application stage are addressed in the Proposal and Application Guidelines or the other Programme Documents.
The editorial office is not able to advise on whether a specific conference is likely to be approved before a formal proposal is submitted, to provide developmental feedback on draft proposals, or to expedite the evaluation process. The sixty-day evaluation window reflects the time required for proper editorial assessment and cannot be shortened on request.