Instructions for authors

General Requirements
Review Process
Preparation of Manuscripts
Examples

General Requirements

Science Studies publishes editorials, research papers, discussion papers and book reviews. Editorials are written by members of the editorial board or, in the case of special issues, guest editors. Instructions about the format and contents of an editorial can be received from the Assistant editor.

Research papers should present results that are novel and relevant for the community of researchers who study science and technology. Research papers can be empirical, theoretical, methods-oriented, or a mixture of these three categories. Research papers need to be scientifically sound and follow the rules of scientific publication. Generally this means that the reported research uses methods and empirical material in a way that is accepted by the scientific community; that the argumentation is clear and consistent; that sources are adequately cited; that the text has not been published before in a refereed publication; that authorship is adequately represented; and that the authors have followed relevant legislation and ethical norms in their work. Science Studies operates with a broad definition of science and technology studies. Still, papers that do not have science or technology as an object of study, will not be published. Research papers should be no longer than 10,000 words, references and attachments included.

Discussion papers should raise issues that are somehow new for the community of researchers studying science and technology. They could bring up a new topic, revive an old or neglected topic, argue for a new standpoint, or comment upon recent research in the field. Discussion papers are thus not meant to support one or the other of well known standpoints in a debate, or to discuss a topic that has already been much discussed. Neither should they be reports from conferences or similar events. Discussion papers should follow academic convention when it comes to manner of argumentation and citation, and they should be no longer than 4,000 words, including references.

For information about book reviews, see the separate page on instructions for reviewers.

All manuscripts should be checked for language before submission. A paper with a poor quality of language cannot be reviewed in an efficient and fair way, and may therefore be rejected by the editors. Authors with English as a second language should take special notice of this instruction.

Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are first screened by the Chief and Assistant editors. The editors decide whether the manuscript will be sent for review or not. The author is notified about the decision as soon as it has been made. The editors may have several reasons for rejecting the paper at this stage, such as that the research presented has substantial and obvious flaws in its design; that the argumentation is incoherent; that the paper is poorly written or has disturbing language problems; that the authors have failed to follow the instructions below; or that the topic of the paper is beyond the scope of this journal.

Papers that make it through the editorial screening are sent for review to two referees. Normally one of them is a member of the editorial board, while the other is external to the board. Both referees are selected on the basis of expertise in the field of the paper. One of them is selected also to assess the relevance of the paper for science and technology studies. Science Studies uses double blind review, which means that referees do not know the identity of the authors and that, vice versa, authors are not informed about the identity of referees.

The referees choose one of the following recommendations: a) Publication without revision b) Publication after minor textual revisions, c) Publication only after major revision, or d) Rejection. They also give more detailed feedback to the paper. When the Chief editor has received the statements of the referees, he makes a decision about the response to the manuscript. The Chief editor takes the recommendations as a starting point for the decision. If the referee recommendations are contradictory, a third referee may be used. The author is informed about the decision as soon as it has been made.

In the case of acceptance after revisions, the author is asked to do revision according to the recommendations of the referees and the instructions of the Chief or Assistant editor. The recommendations and instructions should be followed closely. The resubmission should be accompanied by a letter that reviews the changes that have been done and explains any deviation from the recommendations and instructions. The editors review the new version of the manuscript and make a decision about publication. If revisions are not satisfactory, the paper may be rejected. In some cases further revisions are needed. Sometimes the editors consult the referees anew.

When the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the author will be sent a preprint (a pdf) version for a final check of the text. Authors are responsible to check for flaws in the layout or the text. Science Studies cannot be held responsible for flaws that have not been pointed out by the author. The author is also asked to sign an agreement for publication. This document should be read carefully before signing. After publication, the author will receive an electronic (pdf) copy of his or her contribution, and five hard copies of the issue.

Preparation of Manuscripts

Manuscripts should be written in UK English and saved in MS Word or rich text format. The text, including references, tables and figures should not exceed 10 000 words. The title of the article, authors name, address, abstract of no more than 150 words, 3 key words and acknowledgements should be included on the first page.

Tables and figures should be kept at a minimum and sent along with the original file (preferably in the original format, such as .xls) as separate documents. Tables and figures should be numbered with short descriptive titles. Figures should give monetary values in €Euros or $US. Footnotes should be avoided. However, when necessary, notes should be numbered consecutively and included as endnotes. Endnotes are to be used only for substantive observations, and not for the purpose of citation.

All references to monographs, articles and statistical sources are to be identified at an appropriate point in the text by last name of author, year of publication, and pagination where appropriate, all within parentheses. There is no need for “ibid.”, “op. cit.” or “loc. cit.”; specify subsequent citations of the same source in the same as the first citation. All quotations should be in English.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission from copyright holders for reproducing any illustrations, tables, figures or lengthy quotations previously published elsewhere. Authors of original articles and discussions will receive 5 copies of the printed journal. Authors of book reviews receive 2 copies of the printed journal. All authors also receive a PDF copy of their text.

Examples

If author’s name appears in the text, follow it with the year of publication in parentheses: “… Bernal (1939) has proven that…” If authors name does not appear in the text, insert at an appropriate point the family name and year, separated by comma: “…some have claimed (cf. Andrews, 1967) that…”.

Pagination (without “p.” or “pp.”) follows year of publication, separated with a colon: “… it has been noted (Merton, 1964: 61-64) that…”. Incorporate within parentheses any brief phrase associated with reference: “… (but see Weingart, 1981: 99 for a conflicting view.)…”.

In the case of dual authorship, give both family names; for more than two, use “et. al.”. For institutional authorship supply minimum identification from the beginning of the complete citation: ” …(U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1963: 117)…”.

If there is more than one reference to the same author and year, distinguish them by use of letters (a, b, c) attached to the year of publication both in the text and in the reference appendix: “…(Ziman, 1978a: 331)…”.

Enclose a series of reference within a single pair of parentheses and separate the items by semicolons: “…(Bloor, 1981; Knorr, 1983; Mulkay, 1985)…”.

Format of the references at the end of the text:
List all items alphabetically by author and, within the publications of one author, by year of publication, in an appendix titled “References”. Use no italics and no abbreviations. For typing format, see the following examples:

Browne, J. (1998) ‘I Could Have Retched All Night: Charles Darwin and his Body’, in C. Lawrence & S. Shapin (eds), Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural
Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press): 240-87.

Collins, H.M. (1999) ‘Tantalus and the Aliens: Publications, Audiences, and the Search for Gravitational Waves’, Social Studies of Science 29(2): 163-97.

Lawrence, C. & S. Shapin (eds) (1998) Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press).

Mullis, K. (1998) Dancing Naked in the Mind Field (New York: Pantheon Books). Prigogine, I. & I. Stengers (1984) Order out of Chaos: Man’s New Dialogue with Nature (New York: Bantam Books).