Submissions

Author Guidelines

Please download the current template and example files for the Science Education Quarterly and see the guidelines therein for detailed instructions.

Your paper submitted for review can be created using your preferred editor (e.g., MS Word, LibreOffice Writer, LaTeX, etc.), but the final version of your paper, if accepted, will be formatted using the above-mentioned template.

Articles should be prepared in the following order:

1. A brief and informative title (no more than 12 words). Avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
2. Abstract: a one-paragraph summary or synopsis of the entire document (roughly 150 words). It should address all of the following elements: the purpose of the article, methods, results, conclusions, and recommendations/future directions (as applicable).
3. Include at least three keywords.

We propose to use IMRaD for regular articles:

1. Introduction explains the nature and purpose of the article, the theoretical background relevant to the article's focus, related research with a clear indication of the limitations in existing knowledge or practice that the article will address, and the practical applications or significance of what the article reports.
2. The Methods section describes the participants or sample (e.g., contextualisation, demographics, recruitment/selection criteria, and group assignment); the data collection instruments/data generation techniques (e.g., tasks/methods, equipment, tools, including a discussion of their validity and reliability, if appropriate); the procedures used in the study, such as treatments or the data generation process, and data analysis.
3. Discussion of Results/Findings section. Results/findings should be clear and concise. The discussion should explore the significance of the results of the work and not repeat them. Authors need to acknowledge their study's limitations. A combined results and discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature in the discussion; instead, use the literature to show how the results/findings are significant.
4. Conclusions and Recommendations/Future Directions. The main conclusions of the study may be presented in a short conclusions section, which may stand alone or form a subsection of the discussion, or results and discussion, section. Recommendations/Future directions may stand alone or form a subsection of the discussion or results and discussion section. These include meaningful suggestions for further research and/or practical applications flowing from the study's conclusions.
5. Acknowledgements (if applicable): list here those who assisted with the research (e.g., language editing, writing assistance, fieldwork, etc.) and sponsors.
6. References.
7. Appendix (if any).

Key elements for systematic reviews are: scope of the review; publication time span; publication origin; types of documents reviewed; author's opinion of the reviewed literature; particularly unique or important research findings; and conclusions about the research trends.

These types of article structures and their key elements are NOT mandatory: feel free to use any article sectioning on your own.

NB: A few regions in the world have a disputed legal status. We welcome submissions also from such regions but their affiliation should then by default use the United Nations standard reference for the region. In some cases, an ambiguous reference, e.g. just the region name, may be used in the article. ETQ adopts a conservative (i.e. like United Nations) position about the legal status. ACNS remains neutral with regard to any jurisdictional claims.