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
A local editorial committee will review other material.
Editorial is sought in six distinct categories:
- 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.
- Technical papers for the Professional - cutting
edge technology. Up to 2500 words, including graphics.
Academic format, please, ie abstract, introduction,
- 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.
- 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.
- New Products editorial always accompanied with
a photograph/graphic and usually with a paid advertisement.
Up to 350 words.
- 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 email@example.com
Frequency of Publication and Deadlines
Published quarterly in February, May, August, and
Deadline for editorial: 14th of month prior to publication.
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
Graphics as .jpg, embedded in .doc files, and .ppt
files or .gif files off Web Sites ARE
Please email graphics files individually for ease
Mail hard copies to
PO BOX 6198
UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA 4122.
THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR RESEARCH
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
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
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
PAPER TITLE: ______________________________________________
(1) very strongly disagree; (2) Strongly disagree; (3)
Disagree (4) Neutral (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7)
Very Strongly Agree
|Originality: This paper discusses
|Conceptual Foundation: This
paper is conceptually and theoretically sound
|Significance of Contribution:
This paper is significant to the field
|Implication to Readership:
This paper advances the field in such a way that
others in the field would want to be familiar with
|Methodology: This paper is
technically and methodologically sound
|Discussion: Are the arguments
employed valid and supported by the evidence presented?
|Logic: Is the paper clearly
structured, easy to read, with a logical flow of
|Conclusions: Are the conclusions
clear and valid?
|Readability: This paper was
interesting to read from beginning to end
|Clarity of Presentation: This
paper is written clearly and unambiguously
|Tables: The tables are well
designed/structured and contain relevant information
|Graphics: The graphics assist
in understanding the concepts
KEY STRENGTH: ______________________________________________________
MAIN AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT: __________________________________________
A ACCEPT for publication in Quality Management Journal