This journal is open access and does not charge APCs or submission charges.
DISCLAIMER - Contributors are responsible for the opinions they express in Evidence Base. Neither the Editors nor ANZSOG necessarily endorse these opinions.
Evidence Base will publish reviews of the evidence informing decision-making in specific policy areas.
Reviews in this series must focus on two aspects of past research:
- An issue of importance to public sector decision-makers. Examples might be ‘the effectiveness of performance measures in improving education’, or ‘factors that improve health outcomes in Indigenous communities’.
- The empirical base of research in the area. The focus must be on the nature of the evidence gathered around the issue and the conclusions about policy that derive from this evidence. It is not an avenue for publishing original research, nor a review of theoretical debates. Specific issues for review may include methods of data collection, methods of data analysis, and the definition of key concepts. We use the term 'empirical' broadly: reviews should not necessarily be limited to purely quantitative studies, nor to the results of experimental trials.
Reviews should primarily draw on the Australian and New Zealand research base, but also on international studies where relevant to Australian and New Zealand policy practice.
A key factor determnining whether a proposal will be selected is whether there is a sufficient base of evidence, particularly from Australia and New Zealand, to justify a review. Before submitting a proposal, authors will need to undertake a preliminary literature search and list the key emprirical references from Australia and New Zealand they discover in the relevant area of the proposal form.
We are also particularly interested in proposals that meet ANZSOG's research priorities. These are:
- Collaborative governance and interface between sectors: This includes commissioning, co-production, outsourcing, NGO partnerships etc., including between the public, private and ‘third’ sectors.
- Research-level case studies: Case studies that assist with learning from experience in cross-jurisdictional policymaking. These could be either success stories or cautionary tales, as long as they serve to generate wider principles that can be of use to ANZSOG’s member governments.
The reviews will be 5000—8000 words in length and will be supported by a $10,000 competitive grant to help with the research needed to write the review. Note that the grant cannot be used for the purchase of infrastructure or equipment.
Authors can choose to write a review based on:
- A topic already suggested by public sector managers.
- A topic of your own choosing.
You can submit a review proposal, based on either a suggested topic or a topic of your own, by completing the online application form.
The editorial process is as follows:
- All prospective reviewers will be required to complete the online application, which details the nature of the review they propose, a preliminary list of works to be reviewed, and an indication of the importance of the topic to public sector policy-making.
- The Managing Editor will seek short anonymous referee reports from other experts in the relevant field regarding each proposal.
- Formal approval for a review will be decided by the editorial board at one of its regular meetings, based on the application, the referee reports, and any other information relevant to the decision.
- A grant of $10,000 will be made available to the reviewer, to be paid in instalments as the project progresses. The purpose of this grant is to support the research involved in writing the review. It may be used for, but not limited to, such activities as teaching buy-outs if the reviewer has teaching commitments, or the employment of a research assistant. An initial payment of $5000 will be made, with two further payments of $2500 after two and four months. The Managing Editor will have discretion to release funds more quickly if the specific needs of the reviewer justify this. All payments will be subject to the Managing Editor’s confirmation that the proposal has been formally accepted, and that satisfactory progress is being made towards completion of the review
- All reviews must be completed within six months from the date agreed between the Managing Editor and the author(s). During this time the Managing Editor will require short progress reports after two months and after five months.
- Upon submission of the manuscript, the Managing Editor will have the review ‘peer-reviewed’ by two referees familiar with the topic area, using a double-blind process. The Managing Editor will seek public sector managers to be part of the refereeing process, where possible.