1 Format
Submit your paper as an email attachment to submissions@sysiac.org. Please use pdf-format
or Microsoft Word.
When you submit, you do not have to use the formatting of Systems, Signs, and Actions.
However, in case your paper is accepted, you will receive a styleguide and be asked to edit
your paper according to this guide.
Do not place author information on the first page of the paper since we do blind-reviewing.
Instead, add a front page with the following information:



Names, titles, affiliations and emails of all authors.
The genre of you paper: short position statement, commentary paper (commenting on
other papers in the journal), normal journal paper (15-20 pages), longer contribution
(30-40 pages).
Correspondence information: name, address, email, and telephone of one author to
which correspondence concerning the paper should be addressed.
2 Evaluation
Your paper will be evaluated according to the editorial policy plus normal scientific criteria.
2.1 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. You may
place the emphasis 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).
2.2 Normal scientific criteria
We evaluate papers according to the following standard criteria:







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.
3 Results of the evaluation
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.




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 revision: The paper cannot be accepted as it is, but is a clear
candidate for acceptance. Only minor revisions are needed.
Develop - major revision: 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.
As stated above, if the paper is accepted, you may receive suggestions for improvement from
the reviewers. You can use them, but is not obligated to do so.
If the paper is classified as “develop - minor revision” you are invited to enter into an minor
improvement process together with one of the chief editors.
If the paper is classified as “develop - major revision” you are invited to enter into an
improvement process together with one of the chief editors and a member of the editorial
board.
If the paper is rejected you will receive an explanation for this evaluation, and possibly
suggestions for improvements.