Author Guidelines

 

Scholarly Research Articles

Original research examining ethical issues in publishing through qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods approaches.

Typical Length:

• 3,000–6,000 words

Required Components

• Title
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Thesis Statement
• The introduction should clearly identify the article’s research question, purpose, or central argument.
• Results or Findings
• The outcomes of the research should be clearly stated, including all relevant data.
• Analysis
• Original analysis should build from the results or findings.
• Recommendations Section
• Authors should include a section containing three to five practical recommendations for professionals in the field.
• Recommendations should be presented as a bulleted list and explain how findings can be applied in publishing practice.
• Conclusion
• The conclusion should summarize key findings and explain the broader significance of the topic for publishing professionals, researchers, and students.
• In-text citations and Reference List using

Additional Components Where Applicable

• Literature review
• Methodology

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Research articles and case studies are evaluated based on the following:

• Relevance to publishing and ethics
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Methodological rigor
• Quality of analysis
• Clarity of writing

 

Case Studies

Case Studies, as well as Applied Ethics Project Reports, describe real-world projects, initiatives, workflows, policies, programs, or interventions that address ethical challenges in publishing.

Submissions should focus on lessons learned, outcomes, and practical applications rather than traditional scholarly research.

Typical Length: 

• 3,000–6,000 words

Required Components

• Title
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Main Text
• Introduction
• Description of the ethical challenge
• Project background
• Project design and implementation
• Outcomes or results
• Ethical considerations and challenges
• Lessons learned
• Recommendations
• Conclusion

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Project Reports are evaluated based on the following:

• Relevance to publishing and ethics
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Innovation
• Practical implications
• Transparency regarding successes and challenges
• Potential for adaptation by other publishing professionals
• Clarity of writing

 

Legal Analyses

Legal analyses examine court cases or open legal questions pertaining to intellectual property and publishing.

Typical Length: 

• 1,500–6,000 words

Required Components

• Title
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Main Text
• Introduction of the legal issue
• Discussion of realized or potential impacts on publishing
• Conclusion

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Legal analyses are evaluated based on the following:

• Relevance to publishing and ethics
• Originality of legal analysis
• Clarity of writing

 

Conference Presentations

Conference Presentation submissions are expanded written versions of presentations delivered at the GW Ethics in Publishing Conference.

Authors are encouraged to build upon the original presentation by providing additional context, evidence, analysis, and references.

Typical Length: 

• 500–1,500 words (longer submissions may be considered depending on scope)

Required Components

• Title
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Main Text
• Description of Original Conference Presentation (including conference year and presentation title)
• Main Discussion or Analysis
• Implications for Publishing Practice
• Conclusion 

Evaluation Criteria

The criteria below are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Conference presentations are evaluated based on the following:

• Relevance to conference themes 
• Quality of analysis
• Contribution to publishing ethics discussions
• Practical implications
• Clarity of writing

 

Interviews

Interviews provide an opportunity to explore current issues, practices, experiences, and perspectives in publishing ethics through conversations with publishing professionals.

These submissions are generally commissioned by the Editorial Board, though proposals may be considered.

Formal research is not required, but interviews should demonstrate appropriate preparation and engagement with relevant publishing ethics issues. Factual claims should be accurate and supported by appropriate sources or context where necessary. Interviewees should be given an opportunity to review the final interview for factual accuracy before publication.

Typical Length: 

• 1,500–3,500 words

Required Components

• Title 
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Interviewee Bio
• Main Text
• Brief introduction/context
• Interview questions and responses
• Sources/references, where applicable
• Conclusion

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Interviews are evaluated based on:

• Relevance and timeliness
• Substantive value and depth of discussion
• Engagement with ethical issues
• Relevance to publishing
• Quality and clarity of questions
• Quality of writing and presentation
• Ethical and responsible representation of the interviewee

 

Reviews

Reviews critically examine books, articles, websites, software tools, reports, podcasts, conferences, or other resources relevant to publishing ethics. Reviews should move beyond summary and provide thoughtful analysis of the work’s contribution to the field. The Editorial Board welcomes proposals for reviews and may also solicit review content.

Typical Length: 

• 500–1,500 words

Required Components

• Title
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Full citation of the work being reviewed
• Main Text
• Introduction
• Critical analysis
• Discussion of relevance to publishing and ethics
• Conclusion

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Reviews are evaluated based on the following:

• Depth of analysis
• Fairness and objectivity
• Engagement with ethical issues
• Relevance to publishing professionals and scholars
• Clarity of writing

 

Editorials & Commentaries

Editorials and Commentaries provide informed perspectives on current issues, trends, controversies, or developments in publishing ethics.

These submissions are generally commissioned by the Editorial Board, though proposals may be considered.

While formal research is not required, claims and factual assertions should be supported by appropriate evidence or examples.

Typical Length: 

• 800–2,000 words

Required Components

• Title 
• Abstract (maximum 300 words)
• Main Text
• Conclusion

Evaluation Criteria

These criteria are intended to guide authors during manuscript preparation and reflect the standards reviewers and editors may consider during evaluation.

Editorials and commentaries are evaluated based on the following:

• Relevance and timeliness
• Strength of argument
• Engagement with ethical issues
• Relevance to publishing professionals and scholars
• Quality of writing

 

Peer Review Process 

GWJEP uses double-anonymous peer review for Research Articles, Case Studies, and Applied Ethics Projects. Peer reviewers are selected from a pool of academics and professionals in the relevant field(s). The journal’s editorial committee uses the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform to manage each manuscript as it goes through peer review and to maintain the anonymity of both the author(s) and reviewers.

Research Articles	Research articles and case studies undergo double-anonymous peer review. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, and submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents shared only for editorial and review purposes. Reviewers evaluate submissions according to the journal’s core values: Equity Openness Respect Quality Final publication decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief in consultation with reviewers and the Editorial Board.
Case Studies	Applied ethics projects undergo double-anonymous peer review. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, and submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents shared only for editorial and review purposes.
Legal Analyses	Legal analyses undergo double-anonymous peer review. Authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process, and submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents shared only for editorial and review purposes.
Conference Presentations	Editorial review only.
Interviews	Editorial review only.
Reviews	Editorial review only.
Editorials & Commentaries	Editorial review only.

 

Become a Peer Reviewer

Professionals interested in serving as peer reviewers are encouraged to contact GWJEP.

Please include:

• Name
• Professional affiliation
• Area(s) of expertise
• Contact information
• Email subject line: Request to Peer Review

 

Publishing Process

Accepted manuscripts typically undergo one or more rounds of review before publication. The general process is as follows:

• Editorial screening
• Peer review (if applicable)
• Editorial review
• Author revisions, if requested
• Peer review and/or editorial review may be conducted again as needed to evaluate revisions
• Manuscript decision
• Copyediting and proofreading
• Publication in GWJEP

Authors are expected to maintain timely communication throughout the editorial and peer review process. A deadline for requested revisions will be provided to authors when peer review and editorial comments are communicated. Most revisions are to be completed within 4 weeks, although deadlines may be adjusted to account for the nature of submissions and substantiality of the changes that are requested. Failure to communicate may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from consideration for publication.