Welcome to SySiAc.org

An International Journal on
Information Technology, Action, Communication and Workpractices

Guidelines for reviewers

1 Evaluation

The paper should be evaluated according to the editorial policy plus normal scientific criteria..

1.1 Editorial policy

The journal is defined by a particular perspective: (1) action, communication, representation, and interpretation mediated by (2) information technology in (3) work organizations. The emphasis may be on any of the three components, as long as the others are treated as important parts of the context. For example, technical papers are welcome as long as technology is viewed as media for action and communication. The journal aims at combined theoretical and empirical developments.

Theoretical/conceptual papers should contain some practical or empirical illustrations. Papers with emphasis on empirical research must contain theoretical arguments.
The journal accepts four kinds of contributions: short position statements, commentary papers (commenting on other papers in the journal), normal journal papers (15-20 pages), and longer contributions (30-40 pages).

Assign a weight that indicates how well the three topics are covered. 0 = no coverage, 1 = serves as a background, 2 = focused as a topic of discussion, 3 = the main topic of research.

Weight Coverage
0-3 Action, communication, representation, and interpretation
0-3 Information technology
0-3 In work organizations

Use one mark “X” to classify the paper according the genre:  

Mark

Genre

 

short position statement

 

commentary paper

 

normal journal paper (15-20 pages)

 

longer contribution (30-40 pages)


1.2
Normal scientific criteria

Please evaluate the paper according to listed criteria. Use 0 = unacceptable, 1 = below standard, 2= normal standard, 3 = above standard.

Evaluation

Question

 

Mastery of language.

 

Style and presentation of thesis and arguments

 

Coherence of arguments.

 

Importance and originality of thesis

 

Backing of thesis: empirical evidence and/or theoretical arguments

 

Amount of references and discussion of previous work

 

Quality of illustrations

2 Conclusion

The purpose of the journal is to help provide good papers, not to evaluate researchers. Therefore there are only three options in the final conclusion. Place a mark in the appropriate box:

Mark

Recommendation

 

Accept: (with optional revision): The paper can be accepted as it is; the author is expected to make minor revisions according to reviewer and editor viewpoints.

 

Develop - minor revisions: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, but is a clear candidate for acceptance. Only minor revisions are needed.

Develop - major revisions: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, but it is worthwhile starting an editorial process to improve the paper.

 

Reject: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, and it is not worthwhile starting an editorial process.


2.1
Accept

If you have accepted the paper, you may still have suggestions that will improve the paper. Please write them below. They will be sent to the author.

Suggestions for improvement

2.2 Develop - minor revisions

If you have marked the paper as requiring minor revisions before acceptance, please state your points where you see needs for improvement.

2.3 Develop - major revisions

If you have marked the paper as worthwhile developing (requiring major revisions) , the editors will initiate an improvement process involving the author, a chief editor, and a member from the editorial board. Please indicate the points where you see a need for improvement. Your comments will be read by the people responsible for the development process.

In which areas does the paper need development?

Please indicate (yes/no) whether you will be willing to assist in the improvement process:

 

I am willing to participate in improving the paper

2.3 Reject

Please indicate your main reasons for rejection. Try to be constructive. You comments will be sent to the author.

What are the problems with the paper? What may be done to overcome the problems?

3 Return of the review

Pleas return the review form as an email attachment to submission [at] sysiac.org. We need your review back within 6 weeks in order to keep the review process sufficiently fast.

Guidlines in Word format (78 Kb)