Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The manuscript is sent via e-mail to email@example.com.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it under consideration by another journal.
- The submission files are in Microsoft Word format (and if one or more appendices are in another format, an explanation has been provided in the submission e-mail).
- Where available, DOIs (preferable) or URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Paper Submission Guidelines.
- The author(s) of the manuscript do not have another manuscript under evaluation in this journal at the time of submission.
Please disregard the login/register button above. All submissions need to be sent via e-mail and no registration is needed (please see below for details).
IAPSS Politikon is the flagship publication of the International Association for Political Science Students. It is open to submissions by students and scholars of all levels of academic qualification with the usual frequency of four issues per year.
Manuscripts for publication are considered on a continuous basis, with four deadlines for review rounds set for 15 March, 15 June, 15 September and 15 December each year. The evaluation of manuscripts submitted shortly after one of these deadlines is likely to take longer than when submitted before the deadline. All manuscripts should respect the formal structure and requirements stated in the Author Guidelines. The Editorial Board will contact the authors in order to communicate the results of each evaluation. All submitted research papers and research notes are first subject to an Editorial Board Evaluation that may result in desk-rejection (communicated to the authors with a brief justification) or acceptance of the submission to the main, double-blind external peer review process performed by reviewers not affiliated to the Editorial Board members and the authors. The results of the peer review (publish, publish with minor revisions, revise and resubmit or reject) are then communicated to the authors.
Book reviews and review essays may be subject to Editorial Board Evaluation only, unless the need for expertise in a specific subfield that is not present in the Editorial Board necessitates the commissioning of an external peer-review on a double-blind basis.
Submissions are to be sent exclusively in electronic format to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Required Submission Format
Contents: at least two Microsoft Word files: an anonymized manuscript with no references to the authors' identity (including in the title of the file), and a cover page. The cover page contains the title, name of the author(s) and their short presentation in a narrative form (max. 150 words for each author and including e-mail contacts of all co-authors), abstract (except for book reviews) and keywords. The anonymized manuscript contains the paper title, abstract (except for book reviews), keywords, the main body of the paper, references and appendices (if applicable--longer appendices can be sent as separate files).
- Font: Garamond 12, spacing 1.5;
- Abstract: Max. 150 words, Garamond 12, spacing 1.15, italic;
- Keywords: Five to ten, Garamond 12, spacing 1.15;
- Main Title (Heading): Garamond 16, bold;
- Subtitles (Section Headings): Garamond 14, bold;
- Sub-Subtitles (Sub-section Headings) (if applicable): Garamond 12, bold, italic;
- Footnotes: Garamond 10, spacing 1.0;
- Presentation: Garamond 12, spacing 1.15, italic.
Paragraphs: first line indentation 1.25 cm, no spaces between paragraphs
Borders: top and bottom 2,5 cm, left and right 3,00cm (default)
Quotes: sectioned off in more than two sentences; Garamond 11, indented 1.25 cm
Tables and Charts are continuously numbered, each fits on one page at maximum, and all are sourced (if original, use "Source: Author.")
A good academic paper features:
- Academic style of writing and structure (see section “Recommended Academic Paper Structure”);
- Grammatically correct language;
- Consistency in language conventions (e.g. usage British English) and grammatical person (e.g. usage of either first or third person singular, eventually first person plural, also depending on the number of authors of the paper);
- Between 5,000 and 8,000 words, without bibliography and appendices.
Additional Requirements for Other Publication Formats
- Research notes: usually 2000-4000 words, either present new data without a full-fledged theoretical framework or present a research agenda that is still ongoing (for instance, the theoretical foundations and the methodology has been determined and first data were collected but the main data collection and analysis are not available yet. The author should clearly state the originality and importance of his/her contribution. Research notes undergo editorial screening and a double-blind peer review. They must not have been published elsewhere.
- Book reviews: usually 600-1500 words, they reflect the main ideas as well as the theoretical and/or methodological contributions of a recent work (normally no more than three years since publication) in a novel way. Book reviews normally do not go through a double-blind peer review process (except if some issues/concerns necessitate such a decision) but they undergo editorial screening that examines, in particular, the logic of the arguments in the way presented by the reviewer and the novelty of the reviewer’s approach (especially if the book had been previously reviewed). Furthermore, a high-quality book review should discuss most of the following: the book’s targeted audience, purpose, achievements (results), sources it had used for building and presenting the argument, style of writing/readability and overall contribution to the respective subfield. The review should also provide constructive criticism and identification of missed achievements of the book/edited volume (if any). In other words, it should highlight important aspects that are not addressed although they should have been taken into consideration or are addressed in an unpersuasive/unsatisfactory way. Potential contributors are welcome to contact the journal with suggestions for reviews before submission, however, a positive reply to such a suggestion does not guarantee acceptance without regard to the editorial screening.
- NEW: Review essays: usually 1500-3500 words, they bring together between two to five recent books tied with a set of ideas or connecting points. Review essays review these books but rather than treating each book just individually, they focus on the connections (including potential disagreements) among them and link these to the wider debates in the field (when possible and space allows, other references to works in the field that are not among the reviewed ones in the review essay can be incorporated). Review essays undergo editorial screening and when there is a need for additional specific expertise, through double-blind peer review as well. Potential contributors are welcome to contact the journal with suggestions for review essays before submission, however, a positive reply to such a suggestion does not guarantee acceptance without regard to the editorial screening.
Required Formatting of References
Reference formatting should adhere to the Chicago Manual of Style (author-date variant), 14th Edition. Most major citation managers (such as Zotero) include this referencing style among their options.
IAPSS Politikon now offers a 'format-free' submission process for manuscripts. Provided that the referencing system employed displays consistency and clarity throughout the manuscript, it may be submitted according to any of the major referencing styles typical for the social sciences and humanities. If the submission is not either desk-rejected or rejected by peer reviewers, the authors will then be expected to align their manuscript with the Chicago Manual of Style. With that being said, the Editorial Board does prefer receiving initial manuscripts and references written according to the Chicago Manual of Style (author-date variant). If your text is not written according to the Chicago Manual of Style, then selecting a referencing format with in-text citations, rather than referencing in footnotes or endnotes, is highly preferred.
Recommended Research Paper Structure
How should one structure a fully fledged traditional research paper? Although the structure of the paper will vary according to the needs of the subfield, especially in Political Theory, Political Philosophy, or any other normatively grounded qualitative research, the recommended structure here is particularly suited for empirical papers following a deductive logic. Research notes usually do not present any extensive literature review and focus on new data and/or methods. Conversely, review essays do not typically have a section reviewing data and methods, nor do they analyze collected empirical data. Regardless of which type of manuscript you intend to pursue, your research question(s) should provide the framework you write within, and your analysis should be presented as clearly and cleanly as possible.
Submit as a separate document (see above).
Research question, original parts of research, overview of used methodology, conclusion(s).
General and specific, in alphabetical order.
What is the research question and why should academics research it, scientific and societal relevance.
What has been written on the topic previously, what conclusions did others reach.
(Model construction) and theoretical framework
What theoretical framework and approach are used and why. If applicable, a causal model may be shown at this point, or later, after data investigation.
Conceptualization and operationalization
Definition of basic terms and their indicators, choice of variables and their validity testing. Formulation of hypotheses (explicit or implicit) based on the theory/theories. Elaboration of specific claim(s) in the investigated theory/theories. If applicable, description of the causal mechanism, i.e. the chain of events purported to link your explanatory variables to the specific outcome.
Description of the specific research method used (i.e., process-tracing, discursive analysis, MLA, etc.), its advantages and weaknesses and why it is chosen.
Description of the data used, number of cases, method of case-selection, source of data, method of data collection, sampling method.
Analysis and findings
What the data show in detail, general tendencies, and interesting particularities.
(Model construction) and Conclusions
Causal models may be formulated and general conclusions reached. Conclusions may or may not specifically challenge or support findings in the existing literature.
Possibilities of future research for the researcher or other scholars, promising directions, requirements for future research.
List of References (Bibliography)
Structured in the required format.
Every piece of data used shown so as to facilitate potential replications. If possible, data shared publicly and/or presented together with the manuscript.
Note on Plagiarism
As the global representation of political science students, IAPSS is committed to the highest international standards of academic and scientific honesty. Therefore, we strictly refuse to accept any piece of work, oral or written, that is a product of plagiarism. We subscribe to the definition and characteristic of plagiarism of Oxford University, according to which
‘Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement. All published and unpublished material, whether in manuscript, printed or electronic form, is covered under this definition. Plagiarism may be intentional or reckless, or unintentional.’
We strongly recommend our members and other followers who are considering to submit a paper to one of IAPSS events or our journals or a contribution to our blog A Different View, to study the guidelines of Oxford University or similar guidelines carefully and adhere to the referencing requirements listed therein.
 University of Oxford. 2016. ‘Plagiarism’. Available at [Accessed 20.08.2016]: https://www.ox.ac.uk/students/academic/guidance/skills/plagiarism?wssl=1.
 For example, University of Melbourne. 2016. ‘Academic honesty and plagiarism’. Available at [Accessed 20.08.2016]: https://academichonesty.unimelb.edu.au/.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.