Texas Tech University

Faculty Mentor Information

Our faculty mentors are the secret to the Conference's success. In addition to your incredible work mentoring student scholars, we heavily rely on your expertise in vetting our conference submissions.

No student abstracts are accepted to the conference without approval from the supervising faculty mentor.

For 2024, we have a new abstract submission and review system that should significantly streamline the process. We will no longer ask mentors to manually search for abstracts from their students; instead, our system should automatically alert you to each of your student submissions and provide direct instructions on how to quickly review and approve their work. If you identify an issue with a student submission, you can reject the form, prompt them to make any needed corrections, and watch for a new review prompt from their resubmission.

While we believe this process should be better for everyone, we know change can be a pain. If you run into any issues navigating the abstract review process, please do not hesitate to reach out to us at true@ttu.edu!

Mentor Review Process Summary

  1. Please review our new abstract submission instructions with your student.
  2. Once your student successfully submits their abstract, please watch for an email with detailed instructions for completing your review.
  3. Mentors with Texas Tech eRaider credentials should be prompted to complete reviews within our new abstract submission system. External mentors from other institutions will be asked to review a copy of the submission and respond via email.
  4. If you identify an issue with your student's submission, please reject the entry and address any needed changes. The student will need to submit a new application with your requested edits. Once everything is ready for sharing in our abstract directory, please approve the entry.
  5. Both you and your student will be notified by email once the submission has been fully processed by the TrUE staff.

faculty mentors completing URC reviews while seated at a table