Son of Africa This is a humbly request. Kindly unsubscrube me from the PAYCO Group Website. Thanks, Chuma
--- On Wed, 12/23/09, Sbusiso Xaba <[email protected]> wrote: From: Sbusiso Xaba <[email protected]> Subject: [PAYCO] Fwd: Board Members Allocation To: [email protected] Date: Wednesday, December 23, 2009, 2:43 PM ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: els account <[email protected]> Date: 2009/12/23 Subject: Board Members Allocation To: BREAKING BOUNDARIES The Editorial Policy and Practices Of The Elsevier Journals 1. The Editorial Board Elsevier journals are headed by Editors and an Editorial Board Members. The Editors and Editorial Board is appointed by the Publication Committee of Elsevier Journals. Editors serve a 3-year term and Editorial Board members also serve a 3-year term. Board members are chosen based on the journal’s need for representation from a particular subject area in conjunction with the individual’s commitment to maintaining high journal standards as illustrated in objective and prompt reviews. An Editorial Office Team is also appointed by the publication committee to directly assist the editors and editorial board members. II. The Review Process The Elsevier Journals editorial office policy requires each manuscript be reviewed by individuals who are highly competent and recognized in the particular field of the submitted manuscript. The editorial office contacts those reviewers that have been identified as qualified and/or recommended by the authors. Authors are also encouraged to submit in their cover letters names of individuals whom they feel are appropriate and qualified to review their manuscript. Once potential reviewers agree to read a manuscript they are given a one-week time-frame to complete the review. When the reviews are completed, a decision is made to either accept the paper or give the authors the opportunity to revise according to reviewers’ suggestions or to reject the paper based on the reviewers’ criticisms and the editors’ opinion of the paper. In some instances it is necessary to seek the opinion of other reviewers if further comment is necessary to make a final decision. When an editor has completed his decision on a manuscript, the decision letter and reviewers’ comments are sent to the author. Any questions or concerns regarding the editorial decision on any manuscript must be made directly to the Elsevier Journals editorial office. Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine if the author(s) have adequately addressed and answered the critiques of the reviewers and editors. Depending upon this evaluation, manuscripts may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected. If a paper is accepted, the paper is immediately sent to the publication office and slotted for the next available issue. Elsevier journals tries to complete the review cycle in one week. This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable. 111. Grounds for Declining a Manuscript Elsevier Journals will decline a manuscript after it has completed the review process. Manuscripts that do not meet the standards of the journal are returned to authors with substantial comments describing the basis for the decision. Manuscripts may be rejected if it is felt that the findings are not sufficiently novel, do not provide sufficient new insights, do not contain enough new information, or are too preliminary to warrant publication. Please note that you are to pay $109.99 for registration and that is only after your credentials have been screened by our board. For more details please read the letter attached below. V1. Guidelines 1. Obligations of an Editor The editor should give unbiased consideration to all manuscripts offered for publication, judging each on its merits without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor should process manuscripts promptly. The editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision. The editor and the editorial staff should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than reviewers and potential reviewers. The editor should respect the intellectual independence of authors. Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by the editor and submitted to the journal should be delegated to some other qualified person. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If the editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility. The editor should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Such conflicts include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution. Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in an editor's own research except with the consent of the author. If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it. 2. Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts Inasmuch as the reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process, every scientist has an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. A chosen reviewer who feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to judge the research reported in a manuscript should return it promptly to the editor A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias. A reviewer should not evaluate a manuscript authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the manuscript. A reviewer should treat a manuscript sent for review as a confidential document. It should neither be shown to nor discussed with others except, in special cases, to persons from whom specific advice may be sought; in that event, the identities of those consulted should be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should be alert to failure of authors to cite relevant work by other scientists. A reviewer should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal. Reviewers should not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a manuscript under consideration, except with the consent of the author Reviewers should respond promptly, usually within one week of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, they contact the editor promptly so that authors can be kept informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers There is a letter attached to it and also the procedures on how to fill the form We would appreciate if you contact us as soon as possible because we are updating our data sheet for reviewers and editors which we want to upload in our website soonest. Thank you for your co-operation. Please reply to [email protected] Best regards JOCHEM KOOS(prof) Chief editor -- www.businessarchitecture.com : The Business Architecture is a multimedia magazine published and produced by Sbu Consultants cc. It describes and critically analyses designs of societies, enterprises, business processes and technological systems. -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com -- Sending your posting to [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to [email protected] You can also visit http://groups.google.com/group/payco Visit our website at www.mayihlome.wordpress.com
