EDITORIAL

Editorial will be accepted from Australian as well as International authors.

  • A panel of peers will referee research papers.
  • A local editorial committee will review other material.

Editorial is sought in six distinct categories:

  1. Entry-level articles for newcomers to the quality field. These would include introductory information, use of Standards, tools, case studies, etc. Up to 2500 words, including graphics.
  2. Technical papers for the Professional - cutting edge technology. Up to 2500 words, including graphics. Academic format, please, ie abstract, introduction, etc, references.
  3. Research/academic papers developing new concepts, ideas and reports of survey results, up to 2500 words, including graphics. Academic format, please, ie abstract, introduction, etc, references. A double blind review process is in place.
  4. Advertorial. Describing a specific process, product or service. Part of an advertising package. Up to the equivalent space as the advertisement with or without graphics. A notation will be made that it is an advertorial.
  5. New Products editorial always accompanied with a photograph/graphic and usually with a paid advertisement. Up to 350 words.
  6. Technical or semi-technical editorial that describes products or services included in an advertisement. Up to the equivalent space as the advertisement with or without graphics.

All editorial should be submitted by email to mariopen@coatfab.com.

FREQUENCY OF PUBLICATION AND DEADLINES

Coatings & Fabrication is published quarterly in February, May, August, and November.

Deadline for editorial: 14th of month prior to publication.

FEATURES

The features are repeated each year as follows:

September, Vol Y No 1: BIRTHDAY EDITION. Deadline: 24th August Features: Coatings: Environment, Cleaner Production, General Management Fabrication: Environment, Fabrication Methods, Cleaner production

December, Vol Y No 2: CHRISTMAS EDITION. Deadline: 24th November Features: Coatings: Equipment - Abrasive Blasting, Powder Application, Chemical Fabrications: Sheet Metal Machinery, Fabrication Equipment

March: Vol Y No 3: Deadline: 25th February Features: Coatings: Preparation for Coating-Chemical and Mechanical, Equipment, Coatings-Powder Fabrication: Preparing for Fabrication, Finishing.

July, Vol Y No 4: Deadline 20th June Features: Coatings: Training, Coatings-Powder, E/Coating, Electroplating, Anodising Fabrications: Training, Metals and the Fabricator, Galvanizing, Metal Spray

PLUS Regular Features: The Management Page, ANTA News, Calendar of Events, Sister Associations, Courses/Meetings/Seminars, Q & A, New Products, Standards News, New Faces, Response Form, Subscription Form.

Graphics:

Supply ALL line graphics or drawings as .eps files with vector image-this allows us to scale the images up or down to suit the space available.

Supply photos or graphics including photos as .tif files, or high resolution .jpg or .pdf in 'Black and White', 'Grey Scale' or 'CMYK' colour, either 56, 86 mm wide or 180 mm wide.

Graphics should be scanned at 300 dpi. For .pdf files containing graphic images ensure that no compression is applied.

Camera ready printing quality hard copies are also acceptable.

Graphics embedded in .doc files, and .ppt files or gif files off Web Sites ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

Please email graphics files individually for ease of downloading.

Mail hard copies to
PO BOX 6198
UPPER MOUNT GRAVATT
QUEENSLAND
AUSTRALIA 4122.

THE REVIEWING PROCESS FOR RESEARCH PAPERS

  • All papers are to be submitted in electronic form as per the advice provided above.
  • Information, which identifies the authors, is removed from the paper.
  • It is sent to at least two reviewers who are fellow researchers/practitioners and subject area specialists.
  • They judge the paper for publication, according to criteria that which may include the following:
    1. Does the paper make a new contribution to the field in terms of theory, methodology or practice?
    2. Does the paper relate to what has already been written in the field?
    3. Are the arguments employed valid and supported by the evidence presented?
    4. Is the paper clearly structured, easy to read, with a logical flow of thought?
    5. Are the conclusions clear and valid?
  • The editorial team, on the recommendation of the reviewers, then decides whether the particular article should be accepted as it is, accepted subject to minor revisions/clarifications, resubmitted for review after major revisions, or rejected.
  • The authors are contacted and comments made by the reviewers are communicated.
  • If the reviewers ask for the paper to be revised prior to publication, the authors have the opportunity to make the required amendments, and resubmit it for review. In such cases, the same reviewers would normally be used to review the revised paper.
  • The time taken for this process depends on the speed of response of the reviewers and the authors where revisions are necessary.
  • Reviewers are requested to return the completed paper evaluation form within 4-weeks of receiving the paper for review. Authors are requested to return the updated paper within 4-weeks of receiving the advice from the reviewers.

PAPER EVALUATION FORM

REFEREE: ____________________________

PAPER TITLE: ______________________________________

REVIEW RATING:

(1) very strongly disagree; (2) Strongly disagree; (3) Disagree (4) Neutral (5) Agree (6) Strongly Agree (7) Very Strongly Agree

Review Item
Definition
Score
Originality This paper discusses original concepts  
Conceptual Foundation This paper is conceptually and theoretically sound  
Significance of Contribution This paper is significant to the field.  
Implication to Readership this paper advances the field in such a way that others in the field would want to be familiar with its contents/findings  
Methodology This paper is technically and methodologically sound  
Discussion The arguments employed are valid and supported by the evidence presented?  
Logic The paper is clearly structured, easy to read, with a logical flow of thought?  
Conclusions The conclusions clear and valid?  
Readability This paper was interesting to read from beginning to end  
Clarity of Presentation This paper is written clearly and unambiguously  
Tables The tables are well designed/structured and contain relevant information  
Graphics The graphics assist in understanding the concepts  
TOTAL RATING
  

KEY STRENGTH:

 

 

MAIN AREA FOR IMPROVEMENT:

 

RECOMMENDATION:

  • A ACCEPT for publication as a research paper in Coatings & Fabrication. Minimum score = 63
  • B RESUBMIT
  • C REJECT