Australasian Journal of Information Systems: Announcements

AJIS Improvement: AJIS now has a Facebook site

2020-10-26T21:11:29-07:00

Join the AJIS Facebook page to keep up with our activities.

AJIS Improvement: AJIS RSS/ATOM feed

2015-11-12T00:00:00-08:00

You will now find an RSS/ATOM link box on the home page. Subscribe your outlook or other equipped email clinet and automatically receive advice of new articles.

AJIS Improvement: Automatic update of ORCID publication records

2015-10-07T00:00:00-07:00

What this means for researchers More visibility for your work! AJIS supplies crossref with your ORCID identifier when registering publications ... as long as you have your ORCID details in your author record. This auto-update facility simply means that when we include the info crossref can update and add work(s) to your ORCID record automatically for you. You can still choose to hide/show whatever works you choose, and, of course, you’ll have the opportunity to authorize or switch off the integration completely (though future publications may trigger a new request). Overall, you’ll benefit from a more complete and up-to-date ORCID record to showcase your work.

AJIS Reviews: How to respond to reviewer comments

2015-01-28T14:36:11-08:00

Responding to peer reviewer comments requesting for major revisions is indeed a daunting task for most authors! Although this requires a lot of effort, it contributes to improving your paper, making it worthwhile. This video provides some useful tips that will help you respond to peer reviewer comments effectively. http://www.editage.com/insights/how-to-respond-to-peer-reviewer-comments This video is provided by Editage Insights under a CC:BY-NC-SA license.

Tips for Avoiding Plagiarism

2014-08-21T00:00:00-07:00

The RCC statement describes and clarifies some of the more common issues which give rise to allegations of scholarly misconduct. We strongly recommend that you read and distribute this statement.

AJIS Reviews: Advice on writing rejections

2014-01-29T00:00:00-08:00

This is an interesting article which provides some advice on writing a high quality rejection. Bilbrey, E., et al. (2014). "A Novel Rubric for Rating the Quality of Retraction Notices." Publications 2(1): 14-26. When a scientific article is found to be either fraudulent or erroneous, one course of action available to both the authors and the publisher is to retract said article. Unfortunately, not all retraction notices properly inform the reader of the problems with a retracted article. This study developed a novel rubric for rating and standardizing the quality of retraction notices, and used it to assess the retraction notices of 171 retracted articles from 15 journals. Results suggest the rubric to be a robust, if preliminary, tool. Analysis of the retraction notices suggest that their quality has not improved over the last 50 years, that it varies both between and within journals, and that it is dependent on the field of science, the author of the retraction notice, and the reason for retraction. These results indicate a lack of uniformity in the retraction policies of individual journals and throughout the scientific literature. The rubric presented in this study could be adopted by journals to help standardize the writing of retraction notices.