Prepare a complete, readable manuscript in academic English. Initial submissions need not reproduce the published journal layout, but the files must be editable and suitable for double-anonymous assessment. Use the following requirements alongside the guidance for the selected article type.

Title page and anonymous manuscript

Supply the main manuscript in .doc or .docx format. On a separate title page, give the manuscript title, author names, affiliations with country, corresponding author’s email address, and ORCID identifiers where available. Identify the article type and report the main-text word count. Provide identifying acknowledgements and declarations separately when necessary for anonymity.

Remove names and affiliations from the review manuscript, running headers, file names, comments, tracked-change labels, and document properties. Cite your own relevant work as you would other scholarship, using the third person. Do not remove sources essential to assessing the research simply because they could suggest authorship. Tell the editor about any unavoidable identifying context or public preprint.

Title, abstract, and organization

The title should describe the question or subject accurately. Provide an abstract of approximately 150–250 words that states the problem, approach, main findings or argument, and contribution. The abstract should stand alone without unexplained abbreviations or references that the reader must consult. Supply 4–8 specific keywords.

Research papers normally contain an introduction, theory or relevant literature, methods, findings, discussion, conclusion, declarations, and references. Adapt the structure for conceptual work, reviews, or policy analysis. Use consistent heading levels, page numbers, a readable standard font, and 1.5 or double line spacing where practical. Define specialized terms and abbreviations at first use.

Methods and evidence

Explain the setting, sources, and period studied; the reason for selecting cases or participants; measurement and coding decisions; and the analytical procedures used. Quantitative reporting should identify the unit of analysis, sample, missing-data treatment, model assumptions, uncertainty, and relevant robustness checks. Qualitative reporting should explain recruitment or source selection, interpretation or coding, and how the evidence supports the argument. Documentary and legal analysis should identify authoritative sources and distinguish the rules in force from proposals or commentary.

Make study limitations explicit. Avoid causal language when the design supports association alone. Where evidence is restricted, explain the restriction and provide enough methodological information for meaningful assessment.

Tables, figures, and supplements

Number tables and figures consecutively and refer to each in the text. Provide informative captions, units, notes, and source acknowledgements. Tables should be editable; figures should remain legible at publication size and should not depend solely on colour to distinguish categories. Obtain permission for reused material where required and identify any licence exclusion.

Label supplementary files by content and version. Include a short description explaining how each file supports the paper. Data dictionaries, interview guides, coding rules, appendices, and code should be documented sufficiently for another researcher to understand their use, subject to legitimate confidentiality limits.

References and declarations

Use APA Style, 7th edition, consistently. Match every in-text citation to a reference entry and verify bibliographic details against the original source. Include DOI links where available and precise source information for reports, legislation, datasets, and software. Use page or other location references for quotations where possible.

Include author contributions, funding and funder roles, competing interests, and a data-availability statement. Add ethics approval or exemption, consent, permissions, and substantive AI-use information where applicable. At revision, supply a point-by-point response and clearly identify changes while keeping the review files anonymous.