Following the success of iRMA 2008: Electronic Document and Records Management Systems in Australasia, the National Board of the RMAA will continue to publish an annual collection of papers on recordkeeping. The 2009 edition of iRMA will focus on all aspects of recordkeeping in Australasia. This will be a fully refereed publication*.
The publication will be made available online and on disk. There will be no hardcopy publication.
The RMAA and the editors, Dr Margaret Pember and Dr Roberta Cowan, invite you to submit abstracts for this publication. Abstracts of proposed papers (300 words) will be accepted until 31 August 2009.
Please read the authoring guidelines and send abstracts to either editor at the email addresses below. It will not be possible to extend this deadline. Early submissions will be gratefully accepted.
Accepted papers are required by 30 September 2009 to enable the papers to progress through the lengthy referee process. We are hoping to see a broad range of submissions from all industry sectors.
We are interested in all facets of recordkeeping (records management and archives) from policy issues to change management to implementation of systems to storage and preservation issues. What makes your recordkeeping experience or project worth reporting?
Papers should be between 3,000-8,000 words. Previously published papers will not be accepted. Full details of requirements can be obtained from the editors.
If you are interested in being on the Editorial Board for this publication please let us know as soon as possible. We may be contacted at the email addresses below.
* Peer Review/Referee Process
The referee process entails the review of scholarly papers by professional peers, typically other scholars, researchers, consultants, etc. in the field, thus it confers on the paper and so the author, a higher level of academic standing than an un-refereed paper.
The referee process is also aimed at ensuring that a publication is reflective of the peer community, rather than an editor's personal preferences or knowledge or popular opinion.
An appropriate core Editorial Board will be selected in readiness - additional reviewers will be co-opted as required, depending on the focus of the paper. Reviewers will be listed, in acknowledgement of their work in the publication.
Reviewers make recommendations about whether the editor should accept, reject or ask for revision of the paper. Revision is the most common outcome with 80% of papers being returned to the author for revision.
The review process will be anonymous (blind) to ensure that reviewers are neither 'for nor against' the author. Likewise, it is usual that reviewers remain anonymous to the author.
The final decision remains the responsibility of the editors, but they will normally trust the recommendations of the reviewers, although an author may mount an argument against reviewers comments.
