VETNET Symposium

Publishing in ICVT Journals – Issues and Challenges

JOURNAL OF WORKPLACE LEARNING - Frequently asked

questions

I. Important characteristics of the journal you represent

Journal is founded by current Emerald Chairman John Peters in 1989.

Emerald Publishers, UK.
It is an established Journal, published in both prnt and web formats in 8 issues a 4-5
articles each yeaar, in a quite narrow field, only ever edited by two persons (John
Peters until 2000, then Darryl Dymock) before us. We try to expand the scope, but
VERY carefully, towards some learning psychology/organizational
learning/innovations issues.
123.000 article downloads per year 2007. The journal is NOT currently listed at the
Thompson ICI, but we are planning to give it a try this year. The readers and authors
are people like us; You would meet many of them at our traditional supported
conferences RWL (latest Stellenbosch, ZA in 2007) and EAWOP (Stockholm, 2006),
on alternating years. About one third of the authors have traditionally been
Scandinavians, another third from Canada and Australia; the last third from other
countries. We assume the readership is similarly dispersed.
II . Scope of the journal
WORKPLACE learning. We traditionally reject all papers that describe learning in
schools and teaching/training institutions EXCEPT workplace training in vocational
education-related papers. Also, if the STAFF of an educational institution learn
something while working, then it is again workplace learning.
Disciplines from which articles have been published include education researchers,
social policy, organizational psychology, management, innovation research....

Another policy since years is that purely conceptual and opinion papers are not
accepted. We want to publish empirical papers where the opinions and new concepts
are shown to work at least once.
III. Getting published in the journal: submissions, review, decisions and revisions
About 15 pages; stating the research goal/question early in the paper and why this
question is important, then promoting the relevant knowledge on THAT research
goal/question, then explain the selection and use of the method, then the results and
the conclusions considering the earlier theory and workplace learning. The findings
should be UNIVERSAL and RELIABLE. But still readable; publish only the relevant
findings and tables (then You have material left for more articles to publish :-) )
Check the journal website; format the abstract according to the Emerald guidelines.
Then submit, if You are quite sure that the paper is in line with the Journal theme. Try
to make the best paper in the field; there are only 6 issues per year that are free, and
times 5 papers means we publish the best 30 each year (plus 10 from the conferences;
send a paper to RWL / EAWOP conferences and You get 10 more chances).
We like clarity; the paper should include everything that is required for the reader to
follow how the author came to the conclusions, and how the author made sure the
conclusions are as truthful as possible. The paper should also explain where in theory
the paper makes an contribution. Everything else is typically negative for the editors,
and leads to more probable rejection; we especially dislike papers where authors by
circular logic try to argue for their own excellence. (Extensive self-referencing is one
such method).
Paper suitable for the Journal theme; empirical evidence; enough (at least 10-20)
relevant references to connected previous work and key concepts. Other issues are
typically then taken care of during the revision work.
We try to push for a 45-day reviewer "peace of reviewing". After that, we try to
remember to start to haunt the reviewers. But things DO happen, once, a reviewer
died in the middle of the revision cycle. And didn't let the editors know.
Paper submission in; confirmation by email; quick read (the better abstract, the
better!!!) and decision to reject or to review. Submission to reviewers, or rejection
letter by email. When reviewers' comments are in, a compilation of these and
reject/revise/publish decision to authors by email. If authors revise/rewrite, eventual
new rounds (revisions are always sent to reviewers for comment); then final
acceptance letter by email to author, copyright release form in from author, then
compilation of an issue and confirmation of a publication date by email. The
compiled issue and the copyright (JAR) forms to publisher by the issue deadline.
We request a letter from authors where they either tell us how they have addressed
the critique point by point OR argue why they do not want to accept the critique.
Good arguments should then end up in the final paper, precisely as the changes done
according to the recommendations.
III. The future of the journal
Listing in the ISI database; higher scientific threshold.
Still a quite blunt rejection of conceptual and "casual anecdotal" papers.
As before. Maybe e-learning will finally start to show promise in workplaces too; we
try to collect one annual thematic e-learning issue.
For many countries' systems, it is obligatory (Spain, for example). But the ISI listing
does not tell ANYTHING about the quality of articles in other, non-listed journals.