by Kai | Jun 29, 2009 | Uncategorised
Click Here to download the Adelaide Venue Map
Adelaide, the capital of South Australia, was planned in 1836, by surveyor Colonel William Light. The city centre has a grid of wide streets and various squares all within 1 square mile. This centre is surrounded by a green belt of 930 hectares of parkland. The main street, King William Street, runs from north to south through Victoria Square at the heart of the city.The Torrens River runs through the centre, separating Adelaide and North Adelaide. The city is surrounded by diverse landscapes, including the Mount Lofty Ranges (Adelaide Hills) and coastal beaches.
South Australia was one of the first places in the world to give women the vote in 1894, and was the first in the world to enable women to enter Parliament. See the Women & Politics in South Australia website produced by The State Library of South Australia for more.
Adelaide, is well known for its art and theatre, claiming one of the best arts festivals in the world.
The climate is Mediterranean – with hot, dry summers and cool, mild winters. The average winter temperature is around 15C; average for summer is 29C. See the weather page for more.
Adelaide is close to the sea, with Semaphore and Port Adelaide to the north, Henley Beach and West Beach to the east, Glenelg and Brighton to the south, and even further south Onkaparinga and the Fleurieu Peninsula. The beachfront in the heart of seaside Glenelg is only 20 minutes from the city centre and 10 minutes from the domestic and international airports.
Most of Australia’s wine is produced in South Australia. The Barossa Valley is 40 kilometres long and between 5-11 kilometres wide and is a popular tourist destination. The Barossa Vintage Festival is an annual event, attracting visitors from around the world. See our what’s on section for dates.
Adelaide Airport Transfers
Adelaide Airport is 8km kilometres from the city centre and it takes approximately 15 minutes to drive. The airport services regional, domestic and international travellers in one building. The average taxi fare from the city centre to the airport is $AUD$15. Skylink Shuttle operates between the airport, city and Interstate Rail Terminal (Keswick). The cost is $7.50 one way. Further details can be found at www.skylinkadelaide.com or call 1300 383 783. Alternatively, JetBus links the airport and the city and some suburbs and further information can be found at www.adelaidemetro.com.au/routes/airport.html.
by Kai | Mar 16, 2009 | Uncategorised
Whilst call for papers is now closed for 2013, individuals, organisations and institutions are encouraged to apply to present their asset management technical developments during the conference in 2014. Please be in touch with enquiries.
Submission Process
Draft Paper submissions are now due for Asset Management Conference 2013. If your Abstract has been accepted you will be able to submit your paper online.
All submissions are to be made by the author themselves via the Asset Management Council website as outlined in the Authors Guides or click here Paper Submission Guide.
Final papers are due Monday 15 April 2013
Full Papers
Full papers 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 be registered with one or more referencing databases (e.g. Compendex). To be accepted, papers need to present a concise, coherent and a well-reasoned case (be this theoretical or practical). Full papers are limited to 12 pages and must adhere to the Author Guide. A ‘Best Paper Award’ will be presented to the author(s) for the paper deemed of highest merit by the Awards Subcommittee (on the basis of the author’s written paper).
Please click here for your Full Paper Author Guide and here for the template.
Short Papers
Short papers should be used to highlight efforts that might be in an early stage of development and are important to the asset management community, or 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 Author Guidelines. Accepted short papers will be published in the formal conference proceedings, however these papers will not be registered with referencing databases.
Please click here for your Short Paper Author Guide and here for the template.
Key Dates for your diary
Due to exciting developments, to be announced shortly, we are still accepting Abstracts for review.
Abstracts Due
|
|
|
|
Extended until Monday 28th January 2013 |
 |
| Abstracts Accepted |
|
|
|
December 2012/January 2013 |
| Draft Papers Due |
|
|
|
Monday 18 February 2013 |
| First Review Complete |
|
|
|
Monday 11 March 2013 |
| Final Papers Due |
|
|
|
Monday 15 April 2013 |
| Review Close |
|
|
|
Monday 29 April 2013 |
Publication
All papers accepted from the peer review will be published on the Conference USB of Proceedings. All accepted abstracts will be reproduced in the conference issue of The Asset Journal.
Submit Your Paper
For the visual step-by-step Paper Submission Guide please click here
1.) ‘Register a New User’ by clicking here
or
2.) Log-in to your existing AM Council account by clicking here
We look forward to reviewing your submission.
|
Further Information
Zoë Fitzpatrick
Event Coordinator
Phone: +61 (0)3 9819 2515
|
|
|
Pricipal Sponsor of the Asset Management Conference |
by Kai | Mar 16, 2009 | Uncategorised
Guide to Reviewers
ICOMS Asset Management Conference Sydney June 2009
INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS
Thank you for agreeing to help review papers for ICOMS09. The committee is very appreciative of the contribution to the success of the Conference made by the judgement of its reviewers. If you have any queries after reading the instructions, please email us, or call the secretariat on 03 9830 4899.
Each paper will be reviewed by 3 independent persons and the amalgamated results used by the Technical Review Committee in making their decision as to whether a paper should be accepted.
Ethical aspects
Reviewers are not to forward the papers to any other person without the permission of the ICOMS08 technical committee or secretariat. If a Reviewer has a personal bias with respect to a paper she/he should not undertake the review. Names of reviewers, grades, specific comments and individual reviewer evaluations will remain confidential.
Operational Issues
Communication among Program Chairs, Program Committee members, Reviewers and authors will be effected by e-mail, whenever possible.
GUIDELINES FOR COMPLETING REVIEWS
Reviews are to be submitted online at: ICOMS section of www.amcouncil.com.au
Some suggestions on how to prepare a good paper should be considered when undertaking the review.
(A) Scoring of papers
Reviewers are requested to grade each paper by answering a number of questions relating to its:
-
Scope
-
Significance
-
Originality;
-
Quality;
-
Clarity.
For each question, the reviewer must select one of the following responses:
(a) Strongly agree
(b) Agree
(c) Somewhat agree
(d) Somewhat disagree
(e) Disagree
(f) Strongly disagree
(g) Neither agree, nor disagree
These classifications should be interpreted as follows:
|
Strongly agree
|
The paper is outstanding in all aspects covered by this question, and/or substantially exceeds my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Agree
|
The paper is very good in all (or outstanding in most) aspects covered by this question and/or exceeds my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Somewhat agree
|
The paper is reasonable in most aspects covered by this question, does not have any obvious and related shortfalls and/or meets (but not exceeds) my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Somewhat disagree
|
This paper has some minor shortfalls in aspects covered by this question that should be addressed and/or falls slightly short of my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Disagree
|
This paper has some reasonably significant shortfalls in aspects covered by this question that should be addressed and/or falls short of my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Strongly Disagree
|
This paper has very major, or a large number of, shortfalls in aspects covered by this question that must be rectified and/or falls significantly short of my expectations for this type of work.
|
| |
|
|
Neither agree nor disagree
|
I do not have an opinion on this aspect of the paper.
|
(B) Additional Comments
Reviewer’s comments on the paper may be used by the Technical Committee to explain how individual reviewers interpreted and/or applied ratings.
Comments from all reviewers will be amalgamated and, if appropriate, sent back to authors as anonymous feedback. For accepted papers, comments help authors to prepare their presentations; for rejected papers they constitute relevant feedback to refine or redirect future work. It is also possible that authors be asked to make changes to their paper prior to final submission, as directed by the comments.
Reviewers should explicitly state if they wish that specific comments are not passed back to authors.
(C) Overall recommendation
Reviewers are to select one of the following options:
(a) Accept as is
(b) Accept with minor revisions (detailed in the comments)
(c) Major revisions required to rectify deficiencies (detailed in the comments) and paper to be resubmitted for review.
(d) Reject, due to significant deficiencies that cannot be easily rectified
(D) Award recommendation
This year, prizes will be awarded for the best conference paper. A reviewer’s YES/NO answer to this question will help define which papers are shortlisted for consideration by a common panel
by Kai | Mar 12, 2009 | Uncategorised
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.
