IN REVIEW: Another Option for Getting Published.

Each issue of The Information Management Journal includes reviews of various technical and professional resources. These reviews comprise the "In Review" department.

"In Review" provides readers useful, descriptive, informative, objective, and balanced evaluations of new and currently available knowledge, technology, and professional development resources of interest to information and records management professionals. The department is diverse in both the nature and variety of materials reviewed.

The resources reviewed include a wide variety of tools that focus on the management of records, information, and knowledge. Included in this focus is the application of key management techniques that support information and records management disciplines (e.g., cost-benefit studies, cost analyses, project management, budgeting).

Following is a list of resources that could be appropriate for review in the Journal:

* Published material, which includes books, technical reports, videos, white papers, industry studies, guides, and trade publications; "books" may include monographs (a book-length study of a single subject) and reference books (volumes not meant to be read cover to cover, such as dictionaries and encyclopedias)

* Products, including software, online databases, CD-ROMs, DVDs, and equipment

* Electronic reference sites, which include Web sites and list services

Multiple tools, such as software, may be addressed comparatively within the same review. This approach might yield a review that examines the records retention feature of several products. An example of this could be multiple reviews that each look at the records retention feature of several different information management software products.

Accuracy, balance, and fairness are important elements of reviews. Each review should offer a balance of positive and negative perspectives.

Content and Style of Reviews

While there is sufficient room for creativity by the contributor, the reviews in the Journal are micro-essays that are standard in length (650-750 words), structure, and quality. The reviews add value to the resources being discussed by evaluating them within the information and records management context.

Each review submitted must meet the Journal's editorial standards for objectivity, balance, and clarity. All reviews are subject to the same editing and style rules as apply to full-length manuscripts submitted to the Journal.

In order to provide readers a consistent approach and a reasonable expectation for content quality, reviews include the features presented here. Items marked with an asterisk are required.

* Title of the item being reviewed (*)

* A bibliographic header (some 2-3 lines in run-on format providing the information below), so that readers can decide if they wish to pursue reading a review about a given item; header includes

-- Author (personal name [e.g., John Jones] or corporate [e.g., Commonwealth Films]) (*)

-- Title of work(s) under review (first significant phrase on the opening page of Web site or electronic address on the Web if no meaningful phrase is provided) (*)

-- Frequency of publication (e.g., annually, quarterly, monthly), if applicable (*)

-- Year of publication or date of issue or copyright date; first volume year of publication if a serial title; date created (if known) and last date updated (if known) for Web sites (*)

Text Elements of the Review

* An introductory sentence or paragraph that entices the reader into the article and introduces the topic of the review; a striking or thought-provoking remark or a quotation from the work under review can often be an effective opener (*)

* A brief statement defining the resource and its intended goal/purpose (*)

* A note on the specific subject scope of the work (e.g., records retention, electronic records retention, retention of electronic images) (*)

* Accuracy or effectiveness of title in denoting subject and scope of work

* A note on the intended audience (e.g., archivists only, all information managers) (*)

* How the work is organized (e.g., by chapters, by topics) (*)

* A statement on the appropriateness of the reviewed item's length as related to the purpose of the work (e.g., too long for purpose, too short for purpose) (+)

* A note on the author's (or the organization's) qualifications and experience and possible biases/limitations (+)

* An evaluation of how well its goal(s)/purpose is achieved (+)

* Notice of strengths and weaknesses with examples that document or substantiate such assessments of the work's goals (*)

* Effectiveness of author's/sponsor's introduction; for example, does the author explain the inclusion and exclusion of content you think important (*)

* How the style of the work affects readability (e.g., pitched at an audience with graduate degrees, sentences too complex or simplistic)

* Use of illustrations, graphics, drawings to support content

* Index or other similar guides (e.g., viewer notes that accompany a video explaining how the material is organized in sections or segments)

* Issues of format, including layout, design, sequencing of ideas or elements of presentation

* Comparison with similar work(s) -- if possible

* Use of resources and their documentation (e.g., citations in footnotes/endnotes) to support assertions and factual information (rather just the author's opinion or experience) (*)

* Inclusion and nature of bibliography and/or resource guide (may include URLs, information about organizations/associations)

* Value (e.g., does the work provide new knowledge, or does it provide useful interpretation and repackaging of existing knowledge) (*)

* Who benefits? Who will find this item of benefit, what are the audience limitations if any? (*)

Review Closure

At the review's end, the following appears:

* If it has not already been made clear in the review, there should be a statement of whether or not the reviewer recommends the item being reviewed. Here should be noted any qualifications or reservations (e.g., cost, complexity of the item, usefulness to a wide audience of information management professionals). This statement may be the closing sentence of the review. (*)

* Place of publication (e.g., New York City; Amsterdam; London; Prairie Village, KS) or URL (*)

* Name of publisher/developer/ creator/sponsor (*)

* ISBN or ISSN or other internationally accepted unique bibliographic identifier (if known) (*)

* Size (e.g., number of pages, run-time of video, number of microfiche) (*)

* Price (if known) (*)

* Ordering information (e.g., company name, address); note if item is available through ARMA International (*)

* A brief bio including the reviewer's name, honorifics, affiliation, title, position, and e-mail address for future contact (*)

Traps to Be Avoided

The Journal's editors will work with reviewers to avoid the following pitfalls:

* Reviews that may present an actual or perceived conflict of interest between the reviewer and some other person or entity (e.g., a direct competitor of a person reviewing the competitor's book, a contributor to a work acting as its reviewer)

* Use of either praise or reproach without clear and specific substantiation

* Use of obtuse language such as jargon, cryptic acronyms, etc.

Use of inflammatory or abusive language

* Personal anecdotes

* Writing a report when a review is needed

Submission Procedures

Reviews should be submitted to April Dmytrenko, Journal "In Review" Editor, via one of the following means:

   E-mail:

   [e-mail] (MS Word 6.0 or higher attachment)

   Surface mail:

   April Dmytrenko

   10202 W. Washington Blvd. Culver City, CA 90232-3195

Reviewers will receive a $25 honorarium following publication. They may also be eligible for CRM maintenance credit based on policies and procedures established by the ICRM.

A publication schedule is available on ARMA Online at www.arma.org/publications/journal/ about_journal.htm. Questions about submitting reviews for the Journal's "In Review" section should be directed to April Dmytrenko at [e-mail].