The 2008 edition of Information & Records Management Annual (iRMA) will focus on Electronic Document Management Systems (EDMS) and associated issues. This will be a refereed publication*. The publication will be made available online and on disk. There will be no hardcopy publication.
The editors, Dr Margaret Pember and Dr Roberta Cowan, invite you to submit abstracts for this publication, which will be launched at the 2008 RMAA Convention in Sydney.
Abstracts of proposed papers (500 words) will be accepted until 30 November 2007. Please send abstracts to either editor at the email addresses below. It will not be possible to extend this deadline. Accepted papers are required by 31 March 2008.
We are hoping to see a broad range of submissions from all industry sectors. We are interested in all facets of EDMS from policy issues to change management to implementation to storage and preservation issues. What makes your EDMS experience worth reporting? Papers should be between 5,000-10,000 words. Previously published papers will not be accepted. Full details will be supplied when abstracts are accepted.
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 the 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 for minor 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.
Timelines will be developed to allow sufficient time for the review process. Papers not received by the due date may not be accepted for publication.
