Guidelines for Authors

Each manuscript submission will be screened upon receipt, and if appropriate for this journal, it will be refereed by members of the Editorial Team.  All manuscripts will be subjected to open review whereby the Editor asks reviewers to sign their comments and suggestions, declaring any possible competing interests.  Author names and affiliations are removed before the manuscript is sent to reviewers. The Editor will then forward the reviewer/s signed feedback to the author/s. This system does not allow author/s to contact the reviewers and discuss their manuscript/s independently of the Editor.

Authors are advised to use the following guidelines when preparing their manuscripts for submission:

Length of manuscripts

  • Essay, Article, or Term Paper: the length of this category of manuscripts will range from a minimum of 1500 to a maximum of 4500 words, excluding references, tables and diagrams.
  • Short Report: maximum 1500 words.
  • Commentary: no longer than 1500 words.
  • Book Review: maximum 2000 words.
  • Letter to the Editor: no longer than 700 words.


This journal has adopted the Modern Language Association (MLA) style of writing and citation format.  No footnotes are allowed, except for the author/s affiliation and contact details on the first page.  Endnotes may be used as needed.  Please consult the following library research guide for more detailed instructions on theMLA formatting.

Guidelines for Referees

The following questions may assist the reviewer when evaluating a manuscript’s quality and appropriateness for publication:

  • Originality - does the manuscript present innovative thinking, new data or new insight/s?  Please explain why or why not.
  • Relevance of the work with respect to the journal’s aim and scope.
  • Quality of investigation and analysis – does the manuscript present a clear purpose or research question/s and sufficiently clear and sound method/s, including IRB approval where applicable?
  • Are the findings presented clearly and interpreted or discussed adequately in the context of relevant published literature?
  • Are the conclusions (if any) supported by the findings and discussion presented?  Is the manuscript communicating a clear message, with good point/s?  Please explain why or why not.
  • References – are the sources relevant and representative of current knowledge of the topic/s investigated?

Reviewer’s disclosure of ‘Competing Interests’

Please answer the following questions:

  • Does the possible publication of this manuscript present possible negative consequence/s to your own work?
  • Does the author represent a rival academic discipline or organization or source/s of funding for which you may yourself be competing?
  • Would you want to debate the author/s over competing or conflicting views published in this journal?

The premise is that competing interests are common and natural occurrences, and so we should strive to know about them, and not aim to eradicate them (as argued in this article) is essentially considered worth acknowledging in this journal.