Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology

Produced by CITRENZ

Incorporating the NACCQ publications:
Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, ISSN 1176-4120
Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, ISSN 1174-0175

Home  Authors  Reviewers  About 
 

Reviewer Information

Download this fileReviewer feedback form

Reviewer Guidelines

Articles are reviewed to ensure that they meet the criteria for publication in JACIT, meaning that they are appropriate, relevant and well researched and written. The review process is designed to give potential authors critical feedback on their submission so that this or future ones can be improved and made ready for publication.

As well as providing a publication for existing researchers, a key tenet of JACIT is to provide an opportunity for new and emerging researchers to publish, the reviewer can consider their role to be one of offering peer support and even assistance in the development of both the article and the writing career of the author(s).

Assessing an article for publication

JACIT aims to publish academic articles, reports and views, industry perspectives and other work that contains new ideas - which the target audience of the Bulletin/Journal might find useful, interesting and beneficial. It is important to remember that JACIT is aimed at IT/IS academics, students and practitioners and that articles' content and focus must relate to this audience.

  1. Meet the aims of the Bulletin/Journal: The aim of JACIT is to provide a New Zealand forum for work in progress and scholarly writings in computing, with a strong focus on the application of information and communications technologies to our everyday world - whether this is business, education or society in general. JACIT invites contributions from all interested researchers, including postgraduate students. JACIT is a place where experienced contributors as well as new writers can publish and share ideas, and learn from the experience. As some of the submissions may be from new and emerging researchers (we were all in this position once) JACIT papers may also require some mentoring to assist authors to get their papers to a publishable standard.
  2. New Zealand related content: Have content which relates to New Zealand and/or authors with New Zealand affiliation (this includes visitors presenting papers in New Zealand)
  3. Interest to Tertiary educators: Would be of interest to Tertiary educators (some papers from overseas authors may be considered with no New Zealand connections)
  4. Length: Normally be between 3,000 and 5,000 words
  5. Potential value: The usefulness to JACIT readers is the single most important issue for the reviewer to consider. Articles should be timely, relevant, clearly written in good English, factually correct.
  6. APA style Referencing: Academic work demonstrates its value and originality by grounding in the literature and the submission should include references appropriate for the kind of work - following an accepted style (preferably APA Version 6). Whilst it is not critical to be overly pedantic, refer to our quick APA summary or www.apastyle.org for guidance.
  7. Originality: If based on a previous paper/research will need to contain new information or discussion of follow up research, and will need to have at least 25% new content. Special reference to the prior publication is also required. Care should be taken of any special copyright conditions imposed on the original article.

Providing feedback to authors

Authors rely on your feedback to improve their submission. Use the reviewer feedback form provided. Please provide written suggestions for improvement (in the form of comments for the author/authors); also, focus on global issues, such as organisation or references that the authors might have overlooked. Part of the review process is to identify weaknesses that the author(s) can address prior to publication.

You can (and should) provide overall comments but also address specific issues. In the latter case, please try and clearly identify the section that you are referring to. Where you are critical of something in the article, try to say why in a neutral way and attempt where possible to provide suggestions as to how this can be remedied. You might also want to provide feedback that challenges the author to consider alternative perspectives.

Highlight but do not correct spelling or grammatical errors, however do note that this needs attention in the final submission. A serious number of grammatical or spelling errors might render a submission unacceptable. For works with particularly bad writing, you might suggest that they consider using an external editor.

Remember that one of the aims of JACIT is to provide a publication channel for new and emerging researchers so be supportive! However - it is important to ensure that JACIT is accessible to new writers but it is also important to maintain the academic credibility of the material it publishes.

Working with the editors

When you accept an article for review, you will normally be asked to commit to an agreed deadline normally two week turnaround. This deadline is designed to provide efficient management of the process so, please accept to act as a reviewer only if you feel that you can meet the deadline. If later you discover that you are unable to meet the deadline, please notify the editors as soon as possible.

If upon the receipt of an article you decide that it is not an area that you have sufficient knowledge or expertise in and you do not feel able to review the contribution accurately, please notify the editors.

Articles published in JACIT are peer-reviewed, double-blind. When submissions are forwarded to reviewers, authors' details will not be revealed. However authors' details might not be hidden from a reviewer if a paper presented at a conference is extended and submitted to JACIT reviewed (for example, the annual CITRENZ conference) or if the article itself shows who the author(s) are. If you feel that you have a conflict of interest with the author(s) of a particular article, return it to the editors without reviewing.

The reviewers' identities will not be made known to the author(s) of any particular contribution but reviewers' names will be acknowledged in the relevant JACIT issue.

Reviewer guidelines are provided to assist in providing clear and consistent feedback.

You will be asked to respond to the editors by email. The editors are looking for an objective, qualitative assessment of articles, so rather than using a formal evaluation form, it would be appreciated if reviewers could provide the feedback described below.

Your recommendation

You can recommend one of the following actions to be taken by the editors: Accept; Accept with minor changes; Accept with major changes; Not ready yet.

Comments for the author(s)

These will be sent to the author(s) so consider them carefully. Where changes are required to the article, these need to be clearly described in your feedback. Where the article is considered not yet ready for publication, it would be useful if you could provide critical feedback on why and also what the author(s) might do to be able to publish it. (This might include suggesting an alternative publication if the article is well written but is not appropriate for JACIT.)

Comments for the editors

Please provide any additional feedback to the editors that will be useful but which will not be forwarded to the author(s). This might include more information on problems or other comments that you feel the editors either need to address or be aware of.

Review process

Articles will normally be reviewed by two reviewers. Just as JACIT is intended as a vehicle for new writers, it is also hoped to encourage new relatively inexperienced reviewers to become involved. To achieve this, new reviewers will be supported and guided throughout the review process by one of the JACIT editors or an assigned mentor.

Call for reviewers

Expressions of interest to become a JACIT reviewer are most welcome. If you wish to become a JACIT reviewer, please contact the Executive Editor Emre Erturk.

Updated: November 2016 | If you have questions, please contact the editors.