Page Header Logo
TEI of Athens eJournals

Focus and Scope

JAMI comprises research articles on all aspects and issues regarding Management and Information, along with the mutual interaction between these two fields. Case studies on applied research as well as theoretical discussions addressing methodological questions are also of interest to this Journal. Furthermore, the role of Informatics as a necessary tool for both fields of Management and Information, comprise a thematic cluster central to the objectives of the Journal. Economic aspects of information are also within the scope of the journal. Informatics and information management in the fields of social sciences and the humanities are part of the aim of the journal.

Topics

  • Information management
  • Marketing of information organizations
  • Marketing information
  • Social media and information
  • Informatics (information and communication technologies)
  • Information organization for the humanities
  • Information organization for the social sciences
  • Management of information organizations (libraries, archives, museums, information centres, etc)
  • Project management (information organizations, information handling)
  • Information economics
  • Civilization and Tourism
  • Information and Communication
  • Human Resource
  • Management in Information Organizations
  • Library and Archives Science
  • Records/Document Management
  • Knowledge Management
  • Data Management
  • Cultural Heritage Management
  • Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management in the information field

 

Section Policies

Editorial

  • Unchecked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Research Articles

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Featured Article

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Case Studied

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Technical Papers

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Book review

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Checked Peer Reviewed

Information and Knowledge Management

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Information History: perspectives, methods, and current topics

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Business and Management and Dynamic Simulation Models supporting Management Strategies

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Integrated Information: theory, policies, tools

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Open Access Repositories: self-archiving, metadata, content policies, usage

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Evidence-based Information in Clinical Practice

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Electronic Publishing: a developing landscape

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Information Content Preservation as Outcome of Conservation of Cultural Heritage: ethics, methodology and tools

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Divergence and Convergence: information work in digital cultural memory institutions

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Advances Information for Strategic Management

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Contemporary Issues in Management: organisational behaviour, information technolog, education & hospital leaders

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Business Management and Communication Strategies supporting Decision Making Process in Tourism Sector

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed

General Papers

  • Checked Open Submissions
  • Checked Indexed
  • Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Scholarly, blind, peer review is carried out by two referees, who are experts in the same field before a paper is published in JAMI. Taking into account the journal guidelines, the decision and comments from the reviewers and the editorial board final approval, an article may either be accepted, considered acceptable with revisions (minor or major) or rejected (out of scope). To ensure that the scope of the article is among journal topics and of broad interest and that the English language is used correctly, the Journal’ Editors perform an initial preview. Often articles that not fulfill the above-described criteria will not be accepted, resulting in a shorter processing time. Depending on the quality of the article, acceptance notification could take up to 4 weeks after submission. After receiving a positive decision notification and comments from the reviewers, authors are required to return the revised article along with a detailed letter responding to the comments made by the referees. Authors should respond to all referees’ suggestions; if they disagree with any suggestions, they should justify the reasons for not accepting them. The Editor may again contact reviewers for final or additional comments. Articles will be considered as accepted only after the Editor has approved the revised version. Authors will receive an acceptance notification for the revised article by e-mail. Once an article has been accepted, it should be sent in word-processing format (i.e. MS Word file, not PDF), with separate figure files. Articles returned to authors for revision should be revised and resubmitted within three months; otherwise, they may be considered as withdrawn and treated as new submissions.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Review Guidelines

Double-blind Review

JAMI employs the double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

Criteria for Publication

For a manuscript to be published in JAMI, it must meet four criteria:

  1. Originality
  2. Soundness of methodology, techniques and results
  3. Importance to the community
  4. Relevance to JAMI topics

Recommendation

Several types of recommendation are possible:

  1. Accept submission
  2. Minor revisions required
  3. Major revisions required
  4. Reject – Resubmit for review after major revisions
  5. Reject
  6. Reject - Resubmit elsewhere
  7. Decline Submission

Timely Review

Publication of articles in a timely fashion benefits both the authors and the information management community at large. Reviewers are therefore kindly asked to complete their reviews within one month. If more time is needed, reviewers should contact the editor promptly.

Honest and Polite

After each round of the review, review reports are sent to the author(s). It is important for a reviewer to be honest but not offensive when providing comments. Review reports with opinions expressed in a kind and constructive way will more effectively persuade the authors on the merit of the review. This practice promotes academic discussion and science itself.

Writing the Review

The purpose of the review is to provide the editors with an expert’s opinions on the quality of the manuscript under consideration. A good review report should identify both the strengths and weaknesses of the article and should also provide constructive and specific comments on how to improve the paper.

Suggested Format

The following format is suggested for preparing the report:

  1. Summary and Recommendation
  2. What is the purpose of the article? Is the article appropriate for publication in JAMI? What are the main contributions of the paper? Are the contributions sufficiently significant? Are the methods or findings sufficiently novel? Are the results relevant to information management area? What are the major weaknesses of the article? What is your recommendation for this article and why? If the article is unacceptable in its present form, does it show sufficient potential to ask the author(s) for resubmission?
  3. Detailed Comments on Methodology and Conclusions
  4. Is the method of approach valid? Is the execution correct? Does the article provide adequate acknowledgment of prior research? Do the data support the conclusions? If not, what other data are needed? Does the article offer enough details so that the research could be reproduced? Should the authors be asked to provide supplementary methods or data online?
  5. Detailed Comments on Readability
  6. Is the title appropriate? Is the abstract an accurate and useful summary of the article? Is the article clearly written? If not, how can it be improved? Can the article be shortened? Are the tables and figures easy to understand? Does the paper contain typographical or grammatical errors?

Confidentiality

Reviewers should treat the contents of the article under review as strictly confidential, not to be disclosed to others prior to publication. A reviewer should not use or share with others material from an article he/she has reviewed. Nor should a reviewer distribute copies of an article under review, unless it has been made public.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are requested to inform the editor of any conflicts of interest in reviewing an article. Such conflicts of interest can occur if the reviewer is asked to referee an article written by a colleague of the same organization, former or current student, former advisor, or closely-related person. Another type of conflict occurs, for example, when the reviewer is a direct competitor of the author of the article for a grant. If the conflict is severe, the reviewer should recuse himself/herself.

Authors Guidelines

Please follow the template provided by JAMI for preparing a draft of your manuscript for the blind peer review. Our manuscript template is designed to enable blind peer review and simplify manuscript preparation for authors and is compliant with our manuscript presentation requirements.  It also addresses the common presentation errors that can occasionally contribute to poor peer review outcomes. The template indicates placement and presentation for common manuscript elements.  It also includes a set of ready-to-use text styles, which authors can modify if they wish.  This file is supplied in DOC format.

 

Basic Manuscript requirements

Apart from the templates given for submitting article authors must consider the following: 

Article Length

Articles should be between 4000 and 9000 words in length. This includes all text including references and appendices. Please allow 280 words for each figure or table.

Article Title

A title of not more than 16 words should be provided.

Author details

All contributing authors’ names should be added and their names arranged in the correct order for publication during submission process (Enter Metadata step)

  • Correct email addresses should be supplied for each author.
  • The full name of each author must be present in their author in the exact format they should appear for publication, including or excluding any middle names or initials as required
  • The affiliation of each contributing author should be correct. The affiliation listed should be where they were based at the time that the research for the paper was conducted
Biographies
Each named author should provide a brief professional biography of not more than 100 words. Authors biographies should be uploaded as a separated file (use Upload Supplementary Files step).

Research funding
Authors must declare all sources of external research funding in their article and a statement to this effect should appear in the Acknowledgements section. Authors should describe the role of the funder or financial sponsor in the entire research process, from study design to submission.
 
Structured Abstract

Authors must supply a structured abstract (no more than 250 words in total), as a separated file (use Upload Supplementary Files step), during their submission, set out under 4-7 sub-headings.

  • Purpose (mandatory)
  • Design/methodology/approach (mandatory)
  • Findings (mandatory)
  • Research limitations/implications (if applicable)
  • Practical implications (if applicable)
  • Social implications (if applicable)
  • Originality/value (mandatory)
Authors should avoid the use of personal pronouns within the structured abstract and body of the paper (e.g. "this paper investigates..." is correct, "I investigate..." is incorrect).

Keywords
Authors should provide appropriate and short keywords that encapsulate the principal topics of the paper. The maximum number of keywords is 6.

 

Blind Review Preparation

For article submission please use the JAMI electronic management system (based on OJS platform) at the following address: http://ejournals.teiath.gr/index.php/JAMI. After the registration, the manuscript of the article should be prepared for blind review, using the template and following the guidelines below:

Information to help prepare the Title Page

This should include the title, authors' names and affiliations, and a complete address for the corresponding author including telephone and e-mail address.

Information to help prepare the Blinded Manuscript

Besides the obvious need to remove names and affiliations under the title within the manuscript, there are other steps that need to be taken to ensure the manuscript is correctly prepared for double-blind peer review.  To assist with this, process the key items that need to be observed are as follows:

  • Use the third person to refer to work the Authors have previously undertaken, e.g. replace any phrases like “as we have shown before” with “… has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]” .
  • Make sure figures do not contain any affiliation related identifier
  • Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references but limit self-references only to papers that are relevant for those reviewing the submitted paper.
  • Cite papers published by the Author in the text as follows:  ‘[Anonymous, 2007]’.
  • For blinding in the reference list:  ‘[Anonymous 2007] Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.’
  • Remove references to funding sources
  • Do not include acknowledgments
  • Remove any identifying information, including author names, from file names and ensure document properties are also anonymized.

The application for presenting electronic journals TEI developed within subproject 2 "electronic publishing service" the Act "Development Services Digital Library of TEI" and financed by the operational program "Digital Convergence", NSRF 2007-2013.