Submissions
Submission Preparation Checklist
As 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.-
Please read the TU Delft OPEN policies before submitting your work to The Evolving Scholar.
TU Delft Researchers are strongly encouraged to submit their work using their personal ORCID ID or their institutional account to log in with ORCID. -
The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in the cover letter).
The submission adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined below. -
STLYLE & FORMAT: The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
File format: latex, doc, docx, rtf, PDF (accepted under special conditions)
Font: Arial, Futura, Open sans, Trebuchet, Verdana
Sections: maximum 3 sub-sections
Layout: two columns (except abstract and research highlights), 1,5 spacing
Images: JPG, GIF, GIMP, PNG
Citation (author, date)
Reference style Chicago B (https://www.scribbr.com/category/chicago-style/)
Abbreviations: define upon first use, use standard abbreviations -
STRUCTURE OF THE MANUSCRIPT
First page
Title, Authors with ORCID ID and affiliations Corresponding author (name andemail address) Abstract (max 250 words)
Research highlights: 2 to 5 bullet points that
1. describe the most important findings of your work
2. highlight why readers would be interested in the work.
Last Page
Authorship: Provide an Author/Contributor Statement
Data availability statement
References
Author Guidelines
Please note that the submission and review processes are set up within The Evolving Scholar Community. Join the community and submit your work here. A template/example is available in Word.
After submission, your work will be checked for plagiarism and adherence to the guidelines.
All co-authors will receive a submission notification.
The submitting author is solely responsible for all information entered during the submission process. Please make sure you have discussed the role of all co-authors as described here.
During the review process all co-authors can interact with the reviewers. However, only the submitting author can upload a revised version.
Research outputs can be written in collaboration and be enhanced with hyperlinks, visualisations and interactive data.
We recommend you using the free tool Academic Writing Assistant during the writing process. It will help you check or improve the syntax and the overall flow of the scientific text.
We encourage the submission of the various article type descibed below and in addtition, we also accept work submitted on recognised preprint servers and presented at conferences.
| PUBLICATION STATUS | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| DRAFT | Publication is only visible to the author |
| EMBARGO | Limited to the TU Delft Community |
| PREPRINT | Visible to everyone and ready to accept reviews |
| PUBLISHED | Peer review successfully completed |
| CLOSED | This status is to be used in special cases, e.g. when there is no agreement, the review is not relevant anymore, it is not correct, ethical, etc. |
Article type
We do not accept blogs and data sets for submission.
Book review is a written review and critical analysis of the content, scope and quality of a book or other monographic work.
Conference paper is/was submitted to a conference and/or is/was presented to an audience
Method Paper describes briefly a specific development, technique or procedure modified or obtained from a scientific or technical activity or investigation.
Policy report provides a detailed look at major policy developments and events
Preprint submissions are allowed under certain conditions: 1. Submission is formatted according to the guidelines 2. Submissions do not require experiments that exceeds 3 months (minor alterations)
Registered Reports are empirical article in which the methods and proposed analyses are pre-registered and reviewed prior to research being conducted
Research article reports methods and results of an original study
Research proposal: Accepted proposal (grants) are welcome.
Research report typically provide an in-depth study of a particular topic or describe the results of a research project including the so-called unpublished and negative results.
Review article examines and summarises findings previous published
Software documentation is any type of written documents describing a software product's development and use
Video abstract features the important findings of your work and what’s interesting for the readers. The license should be the same as the related article. The related article can be published elsewhere but the link to video abstract Format: mp4, avi, mov, mpg. Max length: 2 min
Review process
All publications are openly peer-reviewed during the entire process and the review reports are published alongside the publication. Authors and Reviewers communicate transparently throughout the entire process. The review report is attached to the original manuscript and is made publicly available.
OPEN PEER REVIEW WORKFLOW
The review status of submitted work is openly accessible and visible to all. The review process is open for a maximum of 12 weeks after submission.
Invited reviewers who agreed to review will have their names stated on the publication
All co-authors are encouraged openly interact with the reviewers.
| REVIEW STATUS | DESCRIPTION |
|---|---|
| DRAFT | Review writing in progress and only visible to the reviewer |
| DONE | Review report and decision is visible to everyone |
| COMPLETED | Peer review successfully completed with all issues resolved. |
| WAITING RESOLUTION | No agreement achieved between reviewer(s) and author(s), requires a third-party solution. |
| CLOSED | This status is to be used in special cases, e.g. when there is no agreement, the review is not relevant anymore, it is not correct, ethical, etc. |
