General information
Please send us your manuscript in English, German or Spanish.
Please use the following Word-Template:
--> Word-Template for download
Please write with a general, interdisciplinary audience in mind. Avoid using jargon or the presumption of reader expertise.
Please write clearly and simply (e.g. short sentences) so that your contribution is accessible to readers in other disciplines. Structure your text by using cross headings (less than one line of text in length). This will help the editorial office and your readers to follow your argumentation.
Please avoid using footnotes except for technical information that does not really belong in the text. Footnotes that elaborate on points made in the text should either be dropped or incorporated into the text.
Please send us figures as a separate file (in tif or eps) and with a resolution not less than 300 dpi.
Please cite the reference in the text (with declaration of author, year, page) and list the cited references at the end of the text. In doing so, follow “The Chicago Manual of Style”, 15th edition. For more information: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools.html.
Here are some examples of the Chicago Manual of Style:
(1) cited in the bibliography, (2) cited in the text, e.g. page 13
Book with one author:
(1) Doniger, Wendy. 1999. Splitting the difference. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2) (Doniger 1999: 13)
Book with two authors:
(1) Cowlishaw, Guy, and Robin Dunbar. 2000. Primate conservation biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2) (Cowlishaw and Dunbar 2000: 13)
Book with more than three authors:
(1) Laumann, Edward O., John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael, and Stuart Michaels. 1994. The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2) (Laumann et al. 1994: 13)
Chapter or other part of a book:
(1) Twaddell, W. Freeman. 1957. A note on Old High German umlaut. In Readings in linguistics I: The development of descriptive linguistics in America, 1925–1956. 4th ed. Edited by Martin Joos. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2) (Twaddell 1957: 13)
Journal article:
(1) Smith, John Maynard. 1998. The origin of altruism. Nature 393: 13–40.
(2) (Smith 1998: 13)
Article in an electronic journal:
(1) Hlatky, Mark A., Derek Boothroyd, Eric Vittinghoff, Penny Sharp, and Mary A. Whooley. 2002. Quality-of-life and depressive symptoms in postmenopausal women after receiving hormone therapy: Results from the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS) trial. Journal of the American Medical Association 287, no. 5 (February 6), http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v287n5/rfull/joc10108.html#aainfo (accessed January 7, 2002).
(2) (Hlatky et al. 2002: 13)
Please enclose a summary of your contribution (up to 150 words) and four to five keywords (both in English). The summary is for readers outside your discipline, separate from the main text and containing no references. The summary does not contain numbers, abbreviations or measurements unless essential. It contains a paragraph (2-3 sentences) of basic-level introduction to the field, a brief account of the background and rationale of the work, a statement of the main conclusions, and finally, two to three sentences putting the main findings into general context of your field.
Please tell us something about yourself in a few English sentences (year of birth, academic title, employment, research emphasis).
Please send a file (in Word or RTF format) of your article to imme.petersen@uni-lueneburg.de (editorial office) titled as follows: (your) firstname_lastname.doc. Enclose your name, address, phone contact, title of your contribution, and affiliation to the journal section in your correspondence.
Additional information
Research section
Please use the template listed below. Submit up to 8.000 words for the research section. Shorter papers are welcome.
Practice section
Please use the template listed below. Submit up to 4.000 words for the practice section. Shorter papers are welcome.
Please structure your report in initial situation, methods employed, results, and discussion. Discuss your results regarding the relevance for a sustainable future
Students section
Please use the template listed below. Submit up to 6.000 words for the student section. Shorter papers are welcome.
Book review section
Please send us book reviews to new publications of the respective fields (books, journal articles, book sections). They should not exceed 500 words. Shorter papers are welcome.
Please evaluate the strength and failings of the publication and discuss the contribution to the research area.
Peer Review Process
The process of peer review has the purpose to ensure and promote the quality of scientific publications. In disciplinary journals, this quality check is traditionally guaranteed by a double-blind review process. This procedure assures anonymity between the author and the referees to guarantee a review with view to the relevant issues.
However, it is characterised by a considerable degree of non-transparency, which may turn the review process into a “black-box”.
Therefore, the review process of the inter- and transdisciplinary e-journal IJSC follows the new developments of the “Public Peer Review Process”. This innovative procedure was made possible by the extended communicative and interactive possibilities of the internet. Considering the distinct requirements of the four different IJSC-sections, the review processes were adapted accordingly and are outlined in detail below.
Basic information
- Access Review (~2 weeks): The editors evaluate whether the submission is within the scope of IJSC and whether it is assigned to the respective section: “Research”, “Practice”, “Students”, or “Book Reviews”. After this principal evaluation, contributions either pass straight into the review process, are accepted after technical corrections, or are rejected directly.
- Technical corrections (~2 weeks): If the author is asked for technical corrections, he has the opportunity to make them. Technical corrections are necessary in case e.g. of false application of the IJSC-template, spelling mistakes, lack of references, or missing captions of figures and tables.
- Peer Review Process (~4-8 weeks): Having passed the access review, accepted contributions are assigned to the specific peer review process of the respective section: scientific articles will be publicly peer-reviewed, practice reports, students’ contributions, and book reviews will be evaluated by the editors in cooperation with a member of the advisory board.
- Publication (~2 weeks): In case of acceptance, the editorial office edits layout and style of the papers and publishes the final revised papers on the IJSC-website about two weeks later. These contributions will be integrated ex post into volumes or special issues.
Peer Review Process for the Section Research
1) Publication as Discussion Paper (~4-6 weeks): Four to six weeks after submission, the paper is published as a discussion paper simultaneously with two reviews on the IJSC-website. From this moment onwards, public accessibility and citability of the discussion paper are guaranteed. The reviews are signed by the referees.
2) Open Discussion (4 weeks): Any member of the scientific community is invited to give short comments on the discussion paper (attributed). Commentators have to be registered with IJSC. The editorial office reserves its right to exclude abusive commentators from the discussion.
3) Revision (4 weeks): At the end of the open discussion, the editors summarize the reviews and relevant short comments to provide directions for revision if necessary. The authors have the opportunity to revise and re-submit their papers for publication to IJSC within four weeks (second publication stage).
4) Publication (~2 weeks): The revised contribution is finally reviewed by the editors. In case of acceptance, the editorial office edits style and layout and publishes the paper on the website with a direct link to the preceding discussion paper, the reviews, and the interactive discussion within two weeks. Accepted papers will be integrated ex post into volumes or special issues.
Evaluation Criteria for the Section Research
Evaluation criteria are guidelines for reviews and comments to assure uniform rules for the public peer review process. In this respect, the criteria are supposed to facilitate the comparison of the reviews and to guide the public discussion. Referees are asked to consider each, commentators are asked to discuss at least one of the following criteria:
- Relevance
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of IJSC?
- Does the paper represent the current discussion in the respective field of research?
- Originality
- Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, methods or data?
- Are innovative conclusions reached?
- Scientific Quality
- Is the research question critically discussed?
- Are all relevant aspects of the topic outlined?
- Do the authors give proper credit to related work? Are the references adequate, complete, and up to date?
- Scientific Significance
- Does the paper represent a substantial contribution to the scientific progress within the scope of IJSC?
- Does the paper present results that will probably influence future work in the respective research area?
- Presentation
- Is the paper well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Is the paper written with a general, interdisciplinary audience in mind, e.g. by avoiding jargon or the presumption of readers’ expertise?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Do the figures and tables support and complete the contents of the text? Are they clear and understandable?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary of the paper?
- Does the abstract contain the main arguments, the used theories and methods, and the substantial conclusions?
- Self-assessment
- What kind of experience, expertise, and specialisation do you have as referee or commentator?
Peer Review Process for the Section Practice
1) Review (4 weeks): An editor and a member of the advisory board review the submitted paper (non-public). The manuscript will be accepted, returned for revision, or rejected directly.
2) Revision (4 weeks): If the manuscript is returned for revision, the editors will provide directions for modification. The authors have the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper within four weeks.
3) Publication (~2 weeks): The revised contribution is finally reviewed by the editors. In case of acceptance, the editorial office edits style and layout and publishes the contribution on the IJSC-website within two weeks. Accepted contributions will be integrated ex post into volumes or special issues.
Evaluation Criteria for the Section Practice
Evaluation criteria are guidelines for the referees to assure uniform rules for the peer review process. Referees are asked to consider each of the following aspects:
- Relevance
- Does the reported project realise communicative, cooperative, or participative contents?
- Originality
- Does the reported project present novel concepts, ideas, or problem solutions?
- Are innovative conclusions reached by discussing the results?
- Empirical Quality
- Is the empirical design suitable to answer the key question of the project?
- Is the empirical design sufficiently outlined?
- Are the applied methods appropriate?
- Potential for Transfer
- Does the author discuss if and how the results are transferable to other projects or initiatives?
- Does the paper consider what kind of possible problems might occur by transferring the results?
- Potential for Transformation
- Will the empirical results probably have an influence on the development of new projects?
- Is the reported project suitable to stimulate sustainable transformation processes?
- Presentation
- Is the paper well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Is the paper written with a general, interdisciplinary audience in mind, e.g. by avoiding jargon or the presumption of reader expertise?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Do the figures and tables support and complete the contents of the text? Are they clear and understandable?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary of the paper? Does the abstract include the main arguments, the used methods, and the essential conclusions?
- Comments to the authors
In addition, the referees have the opportunity to elaborate on positive and/or negative aspects of the paper.
- General evaluation
The single criteria are finally rated by the referees for a final evaluation. The paper can be accepted, accepted with comments, or not be accepted.
Peer Review Process for the Section Students
1) Review (4 weeks): An editor and a member of the advisory board review the submitted paper (non-public). The manuscript will be accepted, returned for revision, or rejected directly.
2) Revision (4 weeks): Is the manuscript returned for revision, the editors will provide directions for modification. The authors have the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper within four weeks.
3) Publication (~2 weeks): The revised contribution is finally reviewed by the editors. In case of acceptance, the editorial office edits style and layout and publishes the contribution on the IJSC-website within two weeks. Accepted articles will be integrated ex post into volumes or special issues.
Evaluation Criteria for the Section Students
Evaluation criteria are guidelines for the referees to assure uniform rules for the peer review process. The referees are asked to consider each of the following aspects:
- Relevance
- Does the paper address relevant scientific questions within the scope of IJSC?
- Does the paper represent the current discussion in the respective field of research?
- Originality
- Does the paper present novel concepts, ideas, tools, methods, or data?
- Are innovative conclusions reached?
- Scientific Quality
- Is the research question critically discussed?
- Are all relevant aspects of the topic outlined?
- Do the authors give proper credit to related work? Are the references adequate, complete, and up to date?
- Presentation
- Is the paper well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Is the paper written with a general, interdisciplinary audience in mind, e.g. by avoiding jargon or the presumption of reader expertise?
- Should any parts of the paper (text, figures, tables) be clarified, reduced, combined, or eliminated?
- Do the figures and tables support and complete the contents of the text? Are they clear and understandable?
- Does the title clearly reflect the contents of the paper?
- Does the abstract provide a concise and complete summary of the paper?
- Does the abstract contain the main arguments, the used theories and methods, and the essential conclusions?
- Comments to the authors
In addition, the referees have the opportunity to elaborate on positive and/or negative aspects of the paper.
- General evaluation
The single criteria are finally rated by the referees for a final evaluation. The paper can be accepted, accepted with comments, or not be accepted.
Peer Review Process for the Section Book Reviews
1) Review (4 weeks): An editor and a member of the editorial office evaluate the submitted book review (non-public). The manuscript can be accepted, returned for revision, or rejected directly.
2) Revision (4 weeks): Is the manuscript returned for revision, the editors will provide directions for modification. The authors have the opportunity to revise and re-submit the paper within four weeks.
3) Publication (~2 weeks): The revised contribution is finally reviewed by the editors. In case of acceptance, the editorial office edits style and layout and publishes the contribution on the IJSC-website within two weeks. Accepted contributions will be integrated ex post into volumes or special issues.
Evaluation Criteria for the Section Book Reviews
Evaluation criteria are guidelines for the referees to assure uniform rules for the peer review process. The referees are asked to consider each of the following aspects:
1. Relevance
- Does the reviewed book address relevant scientific questions within the scope of IJSC?
2. Scientific Quality
- Is the reviewed book critically discussed?
- Are all relevant aspects of the book outlined?
- Does the review evaluate strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed book?
- Does the review evaluate the book’s association with the research area?
3. Presentation
- Is the paper well structured and clear?
- Is the language fluent and precise?
- Is the paper written with a general, interdisciplinary audience in mind, e.g. by avoiding jargon or the presumption of reader expertise?
4. Comments to the authors
In addition, the referees have the opportunity to elaborate on positive and/or negative aspects of the book review.
5. General evaluation
The single criteria are finally rated by the referees for a final evaluation.
The paper can be accepted, accepted with comments, or be not accepted.