Manuscripts should be submitted in a Microsoft Word file using the following template:
Guidelines for authors planning to submit a manuscript are contained in the following:
To submit a manuscript or contact the editors in chief, send an email to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Submission received by the editor in chief.
- Acknowledgment is sent to the corresponding author within one week.
- Manuscript is assigned to two editorial board members for blind reviews.
- Review and acceptance/rejection recommendation is sent to the editor within six weeks.
- The corresponding author may receive the review outcome as one of the following recommendations: Accepted as is; Accepted after minor revision; Accepted conditional upon a major revision; or rejected.
- If submission requires revision, the authors will be expected to submit the revised manuscript within a month after receiving the review outcome.
- A final acceptance/rejection decision will be made no later than one month after reception of revised manuscript.
Reviewers will review papers according to the following criteria:
Main Article Categories
Empirical or analytical study, Methods and Techniques
Does it present a well-defined evaluation/testing method? Does it present a valid evaluation/testing method? Does it present a method other practitioners can use? Is there a clear description of the measures and their validity? Does it present appropriate quantitative or qualitative data? Does it have appropriate descriptive statistics or analysis? Do the findings have a generalization value to other studies or designs? Is there a clear discussion of the practical implications? Is there a clear discussion concerning the impact on the user or the product? Is there a clear discussion for future, follow-up work? Is there a clear discussion of the take-aways for other practitioners? Is there a reference or further readings list that is pertinent to the information reported and is relevant for practitioners?
Education and Training
Does it present a clear, valid, well-defined usability training method? Has the training method been validated empirically? Is there a clear discussion on when the method is appropriate? Does it include relevant examples?
Does it present an ethics problem that has a generalization value? Does it present a clear a solution or an approach to address the problem?
Opinions and Replies
Does it present opinions that practitioners can apply in their work? Is it an appropriate reply/response to a paper published in JUS? Can the reply be useful to practitioners?
Is the objective statement clear? Is there a logical flow to the information presentation? Is there a clear progression of ideas building on a central theme? Is there a clear transition between paragraphs and ideas? Is there an effective use of transition statements and linking statements?
Is the written submission well-structured? Does the intro state a clear purpose? Is the rest of the paper linked clearly to the intro? Does the body include the test evidence to support the main claims and objectives? Are there clear conclusion summaries, integration of findings?
Is the submission free of spelling/grammar mistakes? Is the submission free of inconsistencies in tense and person? Does the submission follow the required format and style? Are all sources, citations, and acknowledgements complete?
Once a manuscript was accepted for publication in JUS, the author will be expected to sign the following Copyright Permission and Release form: