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
0-3
0-3
Coverage
Action, communication, representation, and interpretation
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 some minor revisions before acceptance, please
state your points where you see needs for improvement.
Suggestions 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
2.4 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
Please return the review form as an email attachment to submissions@sysiac.org. We need
your review back within 6 weeks in order to keep the review process sufficiently fast.