KM4D Journal - Minutes of editors' meeting of 3 September 2013

From KM4Dev Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Present: Denise, Ewen, Lucie, Jean & Sarah (both able to listen but not to talk)


  • Overview of next issues
  • Using our communication channels and the wiki in particular
  • Handbook
  • AOB
  • Proposed dates and agenda for next team meeting

Next journal issues

Issue 9.1 (Climate Change)

Issue is up and announced in august. editors inviting authors for a round of interviews to highlight the articles and post them in blogs. No other action required from anyone here, this is just FYI. All blog posts and related information can be published anywhere (on Ning journal page, on personal blogs etc.) but should be kept track of on the respective issue page on this wiki.

Issue 9.2 (transdisciplinary collaboration)

Going well and will be up end of October. 9-10 papers and an extra paper written by the editors on the link between KM4D and transdisciplinary studies. Will be great. No problem at all and the website is working well: people are uploading their own paper which saves Sarah some precious time. This issue is going to be printed.

Issue 9.3 (facilitating multi-stakeholder processes)

Dec. 2013 issue: going well also - getting final articles now and reviewing those final versions. 13 articles expected for final selection in total. They need to be entered in OAJS. Should be done any time between now and early November, with publication of the issue in early November or later in the month depending on possibly belated submissions. A couple of questions from fellow editors of this issue (see AOB below).

Issue 10.1 (Spanish issue)

16 abstracts - almost all accepted: 10 accepted for sure, 2 rejected, 4 in doubt and issue editors are gathering this week to discuss this. Does it happen a lot that papers are rejected? Sarah says yes and will share rejection letter. • Action: Sarah to share standard write-up for rejecting paper (after abstract has been accepted) Denise asks how much time between abstract acceptance and writing full paper? On average 2 months (though in case of issue 9.3, only 6 weeks but then 10 weeks between submission of peer-review on first draft and final paper). It's always possible, if a paper is not good enough for a given issue, to schedule it for a subsequent issue. For example, a really nice paper by Sebastiao Ferreira is going to the non-thematic issue (10.3, December 2014).

Issue 10.2 (Africa issue)

One abstract submitted so far (in French) and issue editor team will come back to author (Sophie Treinen). This issue was not further discussed in this meeting.

Working with our comms channels and the wiki in particular

For the journal we have 3 channels:

What is suggested is that:

  • We use the wiki to initiate work around an issue, i.e. we have to create a specific page for each journal issue, linked from the public page (such as was done for issues 9.3 and 10.2). Each issue page should contain the full call for papers (so that page's URL can be shared with anyone wanting more information about the specific issue).
  • We use the wiki among editors to keep track of our discussions such as this one.
  • We use the official website to collect all articles, publish issues and keep track of the overview of all issues. Right now this is also available on the wiki but over time, when all T&F issues have been made available to us we can skip this. We also use the journal website to link to author and editor guidelines.
  • We use the Ning page as a conversational space to e.g. raise awareness for a specific issue (posting link to issue page on the wiki), discuss possible topics, react on contents etc. - this should be all conversational and informal. This ning page can also be used to write specific blog posts related to any issue but any of these 'outputs' and reflections related to a specific issue should also be linked from their respective issue page on the wiki, to keep all documentation in one place.

We also need to add old T&F issues on the wiki. Sarah is in touch with T&F about this ("recently had a mail from T&F to say we are going to get all the content back"). • Action: Sarah to share standard write-up for rejecting paper (after abstract has been accepted)


The handbook is available at: This has been worked on by Denise and Sarah as part of the innovation fund and it needs to be wrapped up shortly - by late October latest as Denise has a lot of work upcoming after that. Everyone is welcome to review the handbook containing instructions for authors and editors. • Action: Everyone to review the handbook and share comments about it with Denise/Sarah. All standard letters for approval/refusal etc. should also be in the handbook.


Nargis Hossain submitted a paper. Ewen reviewed it and it doesn't quite fit the issue 9.3. • Action: Ewen and Sarah to discuss this case together

The 9.3 issue editorial team was wondering if the journal has any guidelines or standard for good quality of images (resolution, size, file format etc.). We don't have such guidelines. So long as the PDF version of the article appears ok that's that. We may want to revise these instructions in the future to be more precise. The T&F guidelines also didn't have any specific information about graphics and visuals' guidelines.

Next meeting (7 September, 4-5pm CET)

Organised by Sarah and focusing on:

  • Pending action points from this meeting
  • Upcoming issues
  • AOB

Lucie and Ewen likely unavailable for this as both will be in Rwanda for a major event on ICT4Ag.