Guidelines for academic authors
All papers should be submitted to
All papers will be subjected to a blind review process.
Manuscripts should be between 6.000 and 8.000 words, excluding tables, figures and references.
All manuscripts should be original, unpublished works and not under consideration for publication in other journals.
It is not necessary that manuscripts are formatted according to the journal’s guidelines on submission, however, once accepted, they must be formatted accordingly.
All papers should be submitted in Word format.
Papers should be formatted according to Harvard standard styling guidelines.
Paper size should be A4, with margins set to 2,5 cm on all sides.
Arial font type, size 11 should be employed throughout.
Line spacing should be set to 1,5.
The entire manuscript should be justified.
All pages should be numbered, starting from the title-page.
The title page should feature the following, in order of appearance:
– Title of the paper (in bold and italics)
– Name of the author(s) and affiliation(s) (in bold, each name/affiliation in separate lines, separated by commas; affiliation should be cited in the following order: University, Department, Country)
– Contact details (email address and phone number) (in bold)
– Brief biographical note(s) (max. 200 words)
– Abstract (max. 200 words)
The abstract should outline the objectives of the paper, the semiotic/marketing perspectives on which it draws conceptually and/or methodologically, the key findings (where applicable) and a short statement of the paper’s contribution to the existing literature.
– Keywords (up to five, separated by commas, all lower-case)
All sections should be numbered, starting with 0.
Main section titles must be formatted in bold. All sub-sections must be formatted in bold and italics and numbered after the main section number.
Paragraphs should not be indented, but separated by line-spacing.
Figures, tables, graphs and pictures
Should be numbered separately according to each type (i.e. Table 1, Figure 1).
All figures, tables, graphs and pictures should be included in the text, according to the order of appearance. Authors must ensure that all figures, tables, graphs and pictures are clearly legible and not blurred. Since pdf files will be produced from the submitted texts, the concerned elements will appear in the final documents as originally submitted.
As per Harvard’s stylesheet.
Guidelines for marketing semiotics agencies
Case-studies should be limited to 1.000 words (excluding bibliography, if applicable).
At the beginning of the text, the following should be featured:
Agency name, Author(s) name(s) and position
Client name (if confidential, please state market sector and category)
Brand name: As per client name
The text should be divided into the following sections:
1. Research objective(s)
2. Conceptual framework/research methodology employed
3. Research outcomes
4. Managerial implications For text and formatting guidelines please see Guidelines for academic authors.
Statement of Publication Ethics
The International Journal of Marketing Semiotics & Discourse Studies (IJMS&DS) is a peer-reviewed journal. The editorial board is committed to ethical standards of research publication. A critical part of the editorial responsibilities concerns the awareness of plagiarism and other forms of misconduct in academic publications. IJMS&DS follows the ethical standards as defined by Wager and Kleinert.[i]
DUTIES OF AUTHORS
Soundness and reliability
Reported research should have been conducted in an ethical and responsible manner and follow relevant legislation. Research should be sound and carefully executed. Researchers should use appropriate methods of data analysis and display. Authors should take responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately.
Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously.
New findings should be presented in the context of previous research. The work of others should be fairly represented. Scholarly reviews and syntheses of existing research should be balanced, and should include findings regardless of whether they support the hypothesis or interpretation being proposed. Editorials or opinion pieces presenting a single viewpoint or argument should be clearly distinguished from scholarly reviews.
Work should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. If articles are co-published this fact should be made clear to readers. Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible.
Data, text, figures or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.
All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, supply of equipment or materials, and other support (such as specialist statistical or writing assistance) should be disclosed. Authors should disclose the role of the research funder(s) or sponsor (if any) in the research design, execution, analysis, interpretation and reporting.
Authors should disclose relevant financial and non-financial interests and relationships that might be considered likely to affect the interpretation of their findings or which editors, reviewers or readers might reasonably wish to know. This includes any relationship to the journal, for example if editors publish their own research in their own journal. In addition, authors should follow journal and institutional requirements for disclosing competing interests.
Appropriate authorship and acknowledgement
The research literature serves as a record not only of what has been discovered but also of who made the discovery. The authorship of research publications should therefore accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting.
In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section, the criteria for authorship and acknowledgement should be agreed at the start of the project. Ideally, authorship criteria within a particular field should be agreed, published and consistently applied by research institutions, professional and academic societies, and funders. While journal editors should publish and promote accepted authorship criteria appropriate to their field, they cannot be expected to adjudicate in authorship disputes.
Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves working under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgement. When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.
Researchers should ensure that only those individuals who meet authorship criteria (i.e. made a substantial contribution to the work) are rewarded with authorship and that deserving authors are not omitted. Institutions and journal editors should encourage practices that prevent guest (those who do not meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed because of their seniority, reputation or supposed influence), gift (those who do not meet accepted authorship criteria but are listed as a personal favour or in return for payment) and ghost authorship (those who meet authorship criteria but are not listed).
All authors should agree to be listed and should approve the submitted and accepted versions of the publication. Any change to the author list should be approved by all authors including any who have been removed from the list. The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors and should keep co-authors informed and involve them in major decisions about the publication (e.g., responding to reviewers’ comments).
Authors should not use acknowledgements misleadingly to imply a contribution or endorsement by individuals who have not, in fact, been involved with the work or given an endorsement.
Accountability and responsibility
All authors should have read and be familiar with the reported work and should ensure that publications follow the principles set out in these guidelines. Authors are expected to take joint responsibility for the integrity of the research and its reporting. Authors should work with the editor or publisher to correct their work promptly if errors or omissions are discovered. Authors should respond appropriately to post-publication comments and published correspondence. They should attempt to answer correspondents’ questions and supply clarification or additional details where needed.
DUTIES OF REVIEWERS[ii]
Peer reviewers assist the chief editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the chief editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also bring to the chief editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should decline from reviewing manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.
DUTIES OF EDITORS[iii]
The chief editor of the IJMS is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The chief editor may be guided by the journal’s editorial and advisory boards. The chief editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit. The chief editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript while handling it in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
[i] Wager, E. and Kleinert, S. (2011) Responsible research publication: international standards for authors. A position statement developed at the 2nd World Conference on Research Integrity, Singapore, July 22-24, 2010. Chapter 50 in: Mayer T & Steneck N (eds) Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment. Imperial College Press /World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (pp. 309-16). (ISBN 978-981-4340-97-7)
[ii] This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. URL: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf
[iii] This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. URL: http://publicationethics.org/files/u2/Best_Practice.pdf