The Journal of the Australian Early Medieval Association publishes articles on all aspects of early medieval studies. Especially, it seeks material that crosses traditional disciplinary boundaries and takes new approaches: all disciplines, methodologies, and approaches are welcome. JAEMA publishes scholarly articles, book reviews, and short notices. There is no cost to contributors for the publication of their material in JAEMA. Contributors are responsible for obtaining and paying for permission to use copyrighted material.
Annual submission deadlines:
- for issue 1 – by 1 May
- for issue 2 – by 1 September
Articles
Submissions for publication as a scholarly article may be considered from sole or multiple authors. It is desirable that a preliminary footnote indicate the division of contribution from multiple authors. To be eligible for publication as a scholarly article in JAEMA contributions must be in English, must be original research (i.e. not plagiarised from another author nor an English translation of a previously published article nor a recycled text from the same author), must be within the parameters of the Journal’s publishing scope, must have been recommended for publication as the result of the Journal’s peer review process, must conform to the Journal style, and must be accepted for publication by the editor. Submissions should normally be between 5,000 and 8,000 words in length (not counting footnotes, which should be kept to a reasonable proportion).
Translations and editions of medieval texts will be considered for publication when they are part of a larger study and may be included as an appendix.
JAEMA is open to publishing special issues, in which a collection of articles, usually five, that are on the same theme or come from the same event are submitted. There may be a guest editor who takes responsibility for dealing with the authors and with the Editor. Individual contributions will be peer reviewed individually as normal under the Editor’s direction. The Editor and guest editor will liaise in the situation where one or more of the submissions has not passed the peer-review process in terms of seeking a replacement submission. The Editor and guest editor will also liaise about the overall coherence of the contributions to the theme.
Even though early medieval studies is a specialised field, the contents of each submission to JAEMA are likely to be unfamiliar to many members of the association. Without compromising the academic integrity of their arguments, authors should consider the multidisciplinary audience of the Journal and should address their material to appeal to a broad readership by providing sufficient context for readers who are not already experts in the subject matter of their writing.
Articles published in JAEMA should conform to standard definitions of research: an original piece of writing that systematically and critically analyses and evaluates primary and secondary sources according to appropriate methods that advances a thesis and is supported by evidence and argumentation so as to reach new conclusions that advance human knowledge, and which is presented according to the conventions of academic writing.
Preliminary notes on research still in progress are not acceptable, since JAEMA articles should be mature pieces of work, likely to be of long-term value. Work that will soon be published in essentially the same form as part of a book, or that is already available on the internet, or that is simply the translation of research in other languages should not be submitted. Articles are considered for publication on the assumption that they are not being considered for publication elsewhere.
All published research articles undergo double-blind peer review. The author’s identity is not known to the reviewer and reviewers’ identities are not known to the author. A submission should only include a title and should not include the author’s name or any other comments that enable a reviewer to identify the author.
The Editor undertakes initial determination of the appropriateness of a submission for publication in JAEMA and then selects peer reviewers. Potential reviewers who decline the invitation may suggest alternative reviewers. Authors do not recommend reviewers but may bring to the Editor’s attention names of those they do not wish to have review their work along with suitable reasons. When the Editor is the author or has any other competing interests regarding a submission, another member of the editorial advisory board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Normally two reviewers external to the association membership will be sought who hold a doctoral degree and have expertise and an international reputation in the field. In exceptional circumstances a decision to publish can be based on one review report. In such cases the Editor may act as a second reviewer if sufficiently expert in the field, although in that circumstance, for the sake of transparency, the Editor will make that known to the author.
The reports from reviewers are expected back in a timely fashion of approximately six to eight weeks after accepting the review request. It is the responsibility of reviewers to reveal any potential conflicts of interest when approached with a request to review a particular submission. The report should offer critical evaluation of the originality of the submission’s argument and its contribution to scholarship, appropriateness of method, engagement with relevant literature and accuracy of referencing, accuracy of interpretation of fact, validity of conclusions and offer a recommendation to the Editor about suitability for publication based on detailed reasoning and recommendations to the author about improvement to make a submission publishable where necessary.
Peer reviewers should abide by the principles of COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers with regard to maintaining professional standards of integrity, courtesy, and confidentiality. The Editor will consider the peer-review reports when making a decision and will normally be guided by them, but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. Authors receive the peer-review reports with the editorial decision on their submission. Any concerns about the peer-review process by authors or reviewers should be raised with the Editor in the first instance, who will follow a complaints process that is fair to all parties concerned that is in accord with COPE’s core principles for complaints and appeals.
When a submission has been accepted for publication, authors are to rewrite it addressing the concerns raised by peer-review reports and the Editor. They should ensure that the paper is written according to JAEMA’s style guide. At this stage authors are required to sign a publishing contract which assigns copyright to the article. Although copyright to the article remains with their authors, it is understood that, in return for publication, The Australian Early Medieval Association has the exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free right of first publication and the non-exclusive continuing right to reprint, republish, display, distribute, license, archive, and use the contribution in any language, format, or medium, either separately or as part of a collective work.
Upon resubmission the Editor will edit the article and raise any final questions with the author that need to be addressed. After this, a proof copy will be provided to the author for final corrections before publication. The Editor undertakes to ensure that the entire process between submission and final proofs is kept to a reasonable time, although there can be any number of factors that affect such timelines.
Books for review
Books for review and correspondence about reviews should be sent to the Reviews Editor at reviews@aema.net.au.
- JAEMA publishes reviews of recent publications in early medieval and medieval studies. Reviewers must be members of AEMA unless the review is commissioned by the Reviews Editor.
- Unsolicited reviews normally are not accepted. However, the journal welcomes members’ suggestions as to title they feel should be reviewed in JAEMA.
- For transparency, any potential conflict of interest must be disclosed to the reviews editor before a book can be assigned for review and readers should be informed in the review itself. While reviewers are expected to offer their assessment of books they are to be fair in their content summary and courteous and objective in their criticisms and evaluations. Books reviews in JAEMA are not opportunities to engage in ongoing or detailed disagreements.
Peer review process
All published research articles undergo double-blind peer review. The author’s identity is not known to the reviewer and reviewers’ identities are not known to the author. A submission should only include a title and should not include the author’s name or any other comments that enable a reviewer to identify the author.
The Editor undertakes initial determination of the appropriateness of a submission for publication in JAEMA and then selects peer reviewers. When the Editor is the author or has any other competing interest regarding a submission, another member of the Editorial Board will be assigned to oversee peer review. Normally two reviewers external to the association membership will be sought who have expertise and an international reputation in the field. In exceptional circumstances a decision to publish can be based on one review report. In such cases the Editor may act as a second reviewer if sufficiently expert in the field, although in that circumstance, for the sake of transparency, the Editor will make that known to the author.
The reports from reviewers is expected back in a timely fashion of approximately six to eight weeks after accepting the review request. It is the responsibility of reviewers to reveal any potential conflict of interest when approached with a request to review a particular submission. The report should offer critical evaluation of the originality of the submission’s argument and its contribution to scholarship, appropriateness of method, engagement with relevant literature and accuracy of referencing, accuracy of interpretation or fact, validity of conclusions, and offer a recommendation to the Editor about suitability for publication based on detailed reasoning and recommendations to the author about improvements to make a submission publishable where necessary.
Peer reviewers should abide by the principles of COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer-reviewers with regard to maintaining professional standards of integrity, courtesy, and confidentiality. The Editor will consider the peer-reviewed reports when making a decision, but is not bound by the opinions or recommendations therein. Authors receive the peer-review reports with the editorial decision on their submission. Any concerns about the peer-review process by authors or reviewers should be raised with the Editor in the first instance.