Submission Guidelines

Submission Guidelines

Submissions for review should be sent electronically as email attachments to 

Submission of a scholarly work implies that it (1) has not been published previously, (2) is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, (3) has been approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was conducted, and (4) if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form in English or in any other language, including electronically, without the written consent of the copyright-holder. To verify originality, the work will be checked using the originality detection service Turnitin.

The co-editors review all submissions, and those deemed to be appropriate for the journal are sent anonymously to reviewers by an associate editor. All works are reviewed by members of the editorial board with expertise in the areas represented by a manuscript and/or invited reviewers with special competence in the areas covered. Reviewers use a standardized rating form, which has been shown to improve consistency and quality in reviewer feedback. The co-editors rely heavily on reviewers’ judgments, although they are not bound by them. Strong efforts are made to ensure prompt decisions about acceptance.

Authors are encouraged to submit their works to the journal, regardless of their career stage. For authors who have recently completed their thesis/dissertation, the following resources might be helpful:

Bowen, G. A. (2010). From qualitative dissertation to quality articles: Seven lessons learned. The Qualitative Report, 15(4), 864-879.

Pollard, R. Q., Jr. (2005). From dissertation to journal article: A useful method for planning and writing any manuscript. The Internet Journal of Mental Health, 2(2). Retrieved from

Thomas, B., & Skinner, H. (2012). Dissertation to journal article: A systematic approach. Education Research International, 2012. Retrieved from

Manuscript submissions should include three separate documents:

(1) Cover letter containing any comments to the co-editors as well as a statement indicating (a) that the findings reported have not been previously published, (b) that the manuscript is not being simultaneously submitted elsewhere, and (c) any actual or potential conflicts of interest with the organization that sponsored the research.

(2) Title page containing the title as well as the following information:

  • The authors’ affiliation addresses (where the majority of the actual work was done) by each author below the name. If authors are affiliated with multiple universities or if their affiliation changes from acceptance to proof, they can list the other institutions in the acknowledgements.
    • Indicate all affiliations with a lower-case superscript letter immediately after the author’s name and in front of the appropriate address. Provide the full postal address of each affiliation, including the country name and, if available, the e-mail address of each author.
    • If an author either has moved since the work described in the article was done or was visiting at the time, a present address (or permanent address) may be indicated as a footnote to that author’s name.
  • Name of the author who will handle correspondences at all stages of refereeing and publication as well as post-publication 
    • Ensure that phone numbers (with country and area code) are provided in addition to the e-mail address and the complete postal address. Contact details must be kept up to date by the corresponding author.
  • Keywords (up to 5) should also be included reflecting the major concepts covered in the manuscript.

(3) Manuscript containing the entire text of the article, including abstract, body, reference list, tables, figures, and appendices.

  • To protect anonymity, only the title should appear on the manuscript. As described above, the separate title page should carry the title, author name(s), and affiliation(s). All author information should be removed from the file properties.
  • This document should not exceed 9,000 words.
  • Tables and figures should be placed where they should be included in the manuscript, rather than at the bottom or the top of the file.

Revised and Final Versions of Manuscripts

When submitting a revised work, responses to each of the reviewers’ comments should be included as part of the cover letter file. Providing as much detail as possible (e.g., providing page numbers) will help to expedite the review process. When submitting a revised manuscript with figures, all of them should be included, even if they have not changed since the previous version. The final version of the work should be submitted in Word (.doc or .docx) format. For both revised and final versions of works, the same formatting instructions outlined above should be followed.

Works that are accepted for publication are subject to copyediting. The co-editors reserve the right to make alterations to all works that are accepted for publication.

Formatting Instructions

All submissions for review must be prepared according to the most current version of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association published by the American Psychological Association. Submissions that are not prepared using the APA publication guidelines cannot be accepted for review. Information on the APA publication style manual is available at

Research Articles (including case studies, program evaluations, and brief reports*)


  • Provide a concise summary that is no longer than 250 words and can stand alone.
  • State the problem to be addressed, purpose of the research, participants involved, methodology/design employed, principal results, and major conclusions. Citations and uncommon abbreviations should be avoided.


  • Describe the problem to be addressed by the research, including the consequences of not addressing it, and the corresponding purpose of the research.
  • Synthesize and critically analyze all relevant existing research.
  • Clearly describe the conceptual or theoretical framework guiding the work.
  • Explicate how the study is the next logical step in the line of research.


  • Include a statement verifying that relevant site permissions, participants’ informed consent, and IRB approval were obtained prior to data collection, where appropriate.
  • Fully describe the participants in the study, including inclusion/exclusion criteria and all major demographic information collected.
  • Describe all instruments used, including evidence of their psychometric soundness with the selected population as well as with the sample in the study under review. If a pilot study or field test was conducted, provide details and state what modifications were made as a result.
  • Explicate the specific methodology and design used.
  • Provide sufficient detail regarding the procedure so that another researcher could replicate the study.


  • Clearly and concisely present the results of all quantitative and/or qualitative analyses Use tables as needed. Do not present information in both the text and the table.
  • Include evidence that the necessary assumptions were met when presenting results of parametric tests.
  • Include all necessary statistics when presenting results in quantitative studies. Precise p-values should be presented, rather than broad ones (e.g., p < .05).
  • Present themes, as opposed to raw data, in qualitative studies.
  • Address the practical importance (e.g., effect size) of statistically significant results. Non-significant results should also be presented.


  • Rather than restating the results, connect the findings to the framework and research presented in the introduction and explain how the study advances both.
  • State all of the limitations of the study that might have influenced the findings.
  • Without going beyond the findings of the study, explain how they might influence the practice of online doctoral education, specifically, and/or online graduate education, generally.
  • Describe recommendations for future researchers that logically flow from the study.


  • Present the general takeaway message for readers.

*Note.  Brief reports are held to the same standards of research articles, but are more limited in scope, findings, and length. Brief reports are not a shorter version of a larger manuscript that is intended to be published elsewhere or in the future. These reports often employ a simple research design and/or are limited by smaller sample sizes, but produce findings that indicate that further research is warranted.

Integrative, Critical Reviews of a Body of Literature

  • Justify why a critical review of the literature is the appropriate means of addressing and creating new understandings of the topic or problem.
  • Describe the search process used.
  • Present a broad conception of what is known about the topic and potential areas where new knowledge may be needed.
  • Identify the strengths and key contributions of the literature as well as deficiencies, omissions, inaccuracies, and other problematic aspects.
  • Synthesize the existing research in one or more of the following ways*:
    • A research agenda 
      • Include provocative questions or propositions that provide direction for future researchers.
    • A taxonomy or other conceptual categorization of constructs to classify previous research that serves as the foundation for new theorizing
    • Alternative models or conceptual frameworks (i.e., new ways of thinking about the topic)
    • A metatheory across theoretical domains through future research
  • For more information, see:

Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356-367.

Critical Review of a Text (including articles and books)*

  • This document should not exceed 1,000 words.
    • Like other types of scholarly writing, it should include a thesis statement, supporting paragraphs, and a conclusion. 
  • Include a concise summary of the content to include a relevant description of the topic as well as the overall perspective, argument, or purpose.
  • Offer a critical assessment of the work.
    • Indicate areas of agreement and disagreement with the broader literature and identify where the work is exemplary and deficient.
    • Address the soundness of the methods and information of sources used.
  • Indicate whether the intended audience would appreciate the work and whether it has implications for the practice of online graduate and/or doctoral education.
  • For more information, see:

Hartley, J. (2006). Reading and writing book reviews across disciplines. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(9), 1194–1207.

Lee, D. A., Green, B. A., Johnson, C. D., & Nyquist, J. (2010). How to write a scholarly book review for publication in a peer-reviewed journal: A review of the literature. The Journal of Chiropractic Education, 24(1), 57-69.

*By submitting a manuscript for review you hereby authorize Northcentral University and those acting pursuant to its authority to: Use any quotes attributable to me in printed or electronic material. Use my name, likeness, and biographical material in connection with these quotes. Exhibit or distribute such material in whole or in part without restrictions or limitation for any educational or promotional purpose which Northcentral University and those acting pursuant to its authority deem appropriate.