EDITORIAL FOR INCLUSION IN QUALITY AUSTRALIA-THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT JOURNAL

Editorial will be accepted from Australian as well as International authors.

An international panel of peers will referee research papers.

A local editorial committee will review other material.

Editorial is sought in six distinct categories:

1. Entry-level articles for newcomers to the quality field. These would include introductory information, use of Standards, tools, case studies, etc. Up to 2500 words, including graphics.
2. Technical papers for the Professional - cutting edge technology. Up to 2500 words, including graphics. Academic format, please, ie abstract, introduction, etc, references.
3. Research/academic papers developing new concepts, ideas and reports of survey results, up to 2500 words, including graphics. Academic format, please, ie abstract, introduction, etc, references. A double blind review process is in place.
4. Advertorial. Describing a specific process, product or service. Part of an advertising package. Up to the equivalent space as the advertisement with or without graphics. A notation will be made that it is an advertorial.
5. New Products editorial always accompanied with a photograph/graphic and usually with a paid advertisement. Up to 350 words.
6. Technical or semi-technical editorial that describes products or services included in an advertisement. Up to the equivalent space as the advertisement with or without graphics.

All editorial should be submitted by email to mariopen@worldconferencesystems.com

Frequency of Publication and Deadlines

Published quarterly in February, May, August, and December.

Deadline for editorial: 14th of month prior to publication.

Graphics

Supply ALL line graphics or drawings as .eps files with vector image-this allows us to scale the images up or down to suit the space available.

Supply photos or graphics including photos as .tif files, or high resolution .jpg or .pdf in 'Black and White', 'Grey Scale' or 'CMYK' colour, either 56, 86 mm wide or 180 mm wide.

Graphics should be scanned at 300 dpi.

For .pdf files containing graphic images ensure that no compression is applied.

Camera ready printing quality hard copies are also acceptable.

Graphics as .jpg, embedded in .doc files, and .ppt files or .gif files off Web Sites ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Please email graphics files individually for ease of downloading.

Mail hard copies to
PO BOX 6198
UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA 4122.

THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR RESEARCH PAPERS

All papers are to be submitted in electronic form as per the advice found by clicking on the 'submission of editorial icon'.

Information, which identifies the authors, is removed from the paper. It is sent to at least two reviewers who are fellow researchers/practitioners and subject area specialists. They judge the paper for publication, according to criteria that which may include the following:

• Does the paper make a new contribution to the field in terms of theory, methodology or practice?
• Does the paper relate to what has already been written in the field?
• Are the arguments employed valid and supported by the evidence presented?
• Is the paper clearly structured, easy to read, with a logical flow of thought?
• Are the conclusions clear and valid?

The editorial team, on the recommendation of the reviewers, then decides whether the particular article should be accepted as it is, accepted subject to minor revisions/clarifications, resubmitted for review after major revisions, or rejected.

The authors are contacted and comments made by the reviewers are communicated.

If the reviewers ask for the paper to be revised prior to publication, the authors have the opportunity to make the required amendments, and resubmit it for review. In such cases, the same reviewers would normally be used to review the revised paper.

The time taken for this process depends on the speed of response of the reviewers and the authors where revisions are necessary.

Reviewers are requested to return the completed paper evaluation form within 4-weeks of receiving the paper for review. Authors are requested to return the updated paper within 4-weeks of receiving the advice from the reviewers.

REVIEWERS

The current review panel is

• Prof K Foley
• Prof Mile Terziovski
• Prof John Dalrymple
• Dr Dianne Waddell
• Prof Rick Edgeman

The Review document is as follows

PAPER EVALUATION FORM

REFEREE: _________________________________________________

PAPER TITLE: ______________________________________________

REVIEW RATING:
(1) very strongly disagree; (2) Strongly disagree; (3) Disagree (4) Neutral (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Very Strongly Agree

KEY STRENGTH: ______________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

MAIN AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT: __________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION

A ACCEPT for publication in Quality Management Journal
B RESUBMIT
C REJECT