Call for Papers now Open
Important Dates:
Abstracts due Tuesday 15th Novemember
Draft paper due Tuesdays 31st January
Final paper due Tuesday 10th April
Please submit your abstracts online. For instructions, please click here.
Paper Presentations for ICOMS Asset Management Conference 2012 will be either:
FULL PAPERS or SHORT PAPERS
Full Papers
Full papers (as traditionally presented at the conference) should be used to report on mature work, or efforts that have reached an important milestone. These papers will be rigorously peer reviewed and if accepted, compiled into a formal conference proceedings that will then be registered with one or more referencing databases (e.g. Compendex). To be accepted, papers will need to present a concise, coherent and well argued case (be this theoretical or practical). Full papers will be limited to 12 pages and adhere to the ICOMS Asset Management Conference 2011 Author Guide. An award will be presented to the author(s) of the best full paper (on the basis of their written submission).
Information for speakers on how to prepare full papers and present their papers for publication.
Please download the Author Guide here – for full papers.
Short Papers
Short papers should be used to: highlight efforts that might be in an early stage but are important for the asset management community to be made aware of, present novel theories for discussion, or illustrate systems or case studies that can be described sufficiently in a limited space.
Short papers are restricted to 2 pages, inclusive of all text, illustrations, graphs and references. These will also be checked for relevance, novelty and importance of the underlying work, as well as adherence to the conference guidelines.
Accepted short papers will be published in separate conference booklet, but this will not be registered with referencing databases. Accompanying presentation slides will also need to be supplied for publication via the Asset Management Council website following the conference. Click for Author Guide – short papers
Paper Template for authors: papertemplate.doc
GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING A GOOD PAPER (INFORMATION ONLY)
Four general types of papers, commonly presented at ICOMS, have been identified:
(a) Theoretical/Research Papers (including models)
(b) Case Studies
(c) Theory plus Case Study (Applied R&D)
(d) Review Papers
(e) Short Papers
Some guidelines apply to all types of papers, whilst others are specific to one or more types of paper.
Common Guidelines
1. The sequence of sections in any paper is important to readers trying to follow the logic and description of another’s work. Matters which the authors assume to be well known may not be familiar to, or agreed by all readers and so must be clearly stated as background/assumptions to the study.
2. A proposition becomes a hypothesis only when a logical and plausible explanation has been devised for its support. A hypothesis becomes a theory when supported by the evidence of at least one Case Study. A theory can be undone by just one contrary Case Study, so should never be regarded as the last word on the subject. Only confirmed data can be regarded as facts.
3. The following Section heads should be considered for all papers. Those marked with an asterisk are considered particularly important and should not be omitted without good reason. Those with two asterisks are compulsory for ICOMS. The exact wording of headings may be varied.
Abstract or Summary*
*Keywords** (up to 6)
Introduction* (Explain the purpose and outline how and what was achieved)
Literature Review* (include authors’ own previous relevant work)
Description of Work Done*
*Theory (This can come later if theory formation followed from analysis of data)
Data*
Analysis of Results*
*Conclusions**
*Acknowledgements
References*
Bibliography
4. From 2009 a new type of paper presentation has been incorporated in the ICOMS Asset Management Conference 2010. These short papers should be used to highlight efforts that might be in an early stage but are important for the asset management community to be made aware of, present novel theories for discussion, or illustrate systems or case studies that can be described sufficiently in a limited space. Abstract papers are restricted to 2 pages, inclusive of all text, illustrations, graphs and references.
The short papers shall contain the following headings/sections.
Introduction and Aims:
A paragraph which clearly and succinctly describes what it is being assessed / described in the paper
Methods/Processes/Work Done:
Describe the approach used, or the proposal, what has been done, what methods were selected and why. Theory / methodology must be explained in terms intelligible to a graduate engineer.
Results:
Short description of the outcomes of the case study / proposals / experiment / investigations
Conclusions:
Describe what conclusions can be drawn from the results and what areas remain open for ongoing investigation / research. Include any lessons learned.
5. Papers must be written in plain, correctly spelt and grammatically correct English. Jargon should be avoided and acronyms must be defined the first time they are used.
6. Blatant advertising is strictly forbidden and papers in which a company, product or service are specifically promoted (rather than the underlying concepts) are likely to be rejected during the review process. Authors are however, encouraged to very briefly state their affiliation and describe their business as it relates to the subject matter to ensure the work can be appropriately contextualised. Consultants may need permission of their customers, which is the responsibility of authors.
7. References are work that is directly cited in the paper whilst a bibliography consists of other written work the authors found useful when preparing the paper.
Theoretical/Research Papers (Including models)
1. Authors must show by means of a thorough literature survey that the theory really is new and what it owes to previous work by the authors and others.
2. Theory must be explained in terms intelligible to a graduate engineer.
3. Proposals for testing the new theory must be included.
4. Examples to illustrate the operation of the logic or mathematics shall be given. It is acceptable to rework old data or to use fabricated data for these examples, but sources must be clearly stated.
5. If any example is real and new, then the paper is re-classified as Theory plus Case Study.
6. A paper is no less theoretical if it is expressed in words rather than algebra, or both; it must be logically developed and not just an opinion.
7. Experimental methods and analysis techniques must describe what was done and what happened in sufficient detail for the experiments and/or analysis to be repeated by another person or team. Data used and the testing environment must be fully described.
Theory Plus Case Study Papers (Applied R&D)
1. All the rules for Theoretical/Research Papers (see above) and Case Studies (see below) still apply.
2. State clearly whether the case study was conducted to test the theory or the theory arose from the data’s analysis.
Case Studies
1. Case studies are essential to formulate, improve and increase confidence in theories. The fact that a case study “merely confirms an established theory” does not detract from its value. If it seems to disprove current theory then there is all the more reason to publish it.
2. It is vital that case studies describe what was done and what happened in sufficient detail for the study to be repeated by another person or team. Methodology, data and environment must be fully described. For example, data on failures must include preventive renewals and overhauls. Good data-sets in this field are unfortunately rare, and so precious.
3. Data should be analysed using current methodology. The author(s) may then comment on how well the results accord with current theories, speculate on the reasons for discrepancies and propose further work to settle outstanding matters.
Review Papers
1. A review paper is a detailed examination of the state of play in a defined subject area. It should be more than a literature survey. It should draw attention to historical development of theory and practice, inconsistencies and disagreements, case studies, analyses and re-analyses of published data-sets where appropriate, etc. They usually come from academia but sometimes from consultancies.
2. The References and Bibliography sections will inevitably be large, and will become too large if no limit is placed on referencing less meritorious work from long ago. The great gurus of the past should be acknowledged though. Reference to previous review papers is a good way to keep such papers within bounds.
3. Such papers often arise from deep and extensive literature surveys by doctoral students who have reached the stage of forming their own opinions and sketching out their substantive research to come, or professors seeking consolidation of years of work by themselves and colleagues, again in order to see what now needs doing. The art is to condense to a reasonable size without losing either the thread of development or any work vital to further progress.
Simple accumulation is not enough to get such work published. Review papers must proceed to critical re-examination and reasoned judgements about the continued usefulness in several contexts of the work reviewed.