Submissions

Online Submissions

Already have a Username/Password for Higher Education Perspectives?
Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?
Go to Registration

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

 

Author Guidelines

Authors are invited to submit scholarly manuscripts of relevance to higher education in Canada and internationally. The editors will inform you if your article does not appear to be within the scope of the journal.

FORMATTING AND COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES

Your article should follow these guidelines:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript adheres to the word limit of 4000 to 5000 words.

2. The journal uses American Psychological Association (APA) bibliographic and formatting standards. While we will accept articles written using another citation and formatting manual, you will need to reformat it prior to publication.

3. When signing up as an author, ensure you include your name, telephone number, email address, academic institution, position (faculty or student), a brief biography and a brief synopsis of the article. PLEASE DO NOT INCLUDE THIS INFORMATION IN THE BODY OF YOUR ARTICLE! We use a blind peer-review system. So, when you submit your document, PLEASE ENSURE YOU DO NOT INCLUDE A TITLE PAGE OR YOUR NAME IN THE HEADER OR FOOTER!!!

4. Please include the title of the article and page number on each subsequent page, but do NOT include your name anywhere in the body of the article.

5. Please use standard word processing software (preferably MS Word). Do not send pdf files or hard copies.

6. If you are including supplementary files (figures, tables, graphs, illustrations, etc.) please include them in a separate file rather than within the body of your manuscript text.

7. We will acknowledge receipt of all articles submitted to us. If you have not received an acknowledgement within 10 days of sending your article, please contact us.

INFORMATION AND EXPECTATIONS FOR THE REVIEW AND EDITORIAL PROCESS

Upon submission, your article will be sent to at least 2 reviewers for blind peer review. The reviewers' responses will help the editors determine whether your article is suitable for publication in HEP. Please keep in mind that almost all articles require significant revision based on reviewers' recommendations before publication. After your article has been reviewed, the editors will provide you with a summary of reviewers' suggestions. We cannot accept all articles, but your article may be accepted conditionally based on the completion of these revisions. We may also ask that you complete the revisions and then resubmit the article for further review.

Before submitting your paper, please make sure that it adheres to our length and scope guidelines and that it has been thoroughly proofread. Submissions that do not meet HEP's publication guidelines will not be sent for review.

Please go over the reviewer's guidelines before submitting your article to understand how our reviewers will assess your articles. You may wish to evaluate your own essay, or ask a colleague or mentor to evaluate it, with these guidelines in mind.

Higher Education Perspectives Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers are asked to answer each of the following questions and provide an overall recommendation according to the guidelines provided.

Questions:

Does the author provide a clear introduction and statement of the problem early in the paper? If not, what information should the author add or clarify to improve the introduction?

Does the author establish where his or her work is placed within current scholarly discussion? If not, which studies or bodies of scholarship should the author address in the context of his or her study?

Does the author provide an appropriate explanation of the theoretical and methodological foundations of his or her work? If not, which aspects of the author's study require further clarification?

Does the author provide appropriate evidence to support his or her claims? If not, what further evidence might be required to prove his or her assertions?

Does the author's conclusion provide insight into the implications of his or her research and/or point to important areas for future study? If not, which areas should the author explore more deeply in his or her conclusion?

Is the author's language and grammar appropriate throughout? If not, are there particular areas which the author should work to improve?

Do you have any additional comments for the author and editors?

Recommendation:
___ Accept with minor revisions
The article is well researched and written and on a topic of importance to the field and the journal, with no significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require small additions to its theoretical or scholarly background, or may need to be edited, but does not require any significant additional research or restructuring.

___ Re-submit with significant revisions
The article is on a topic of importance to the field and the journal, but requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several significant gaps in methodology, analysis, or theoretical or scholarly background, or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer is confident that such revisions can be successfully completed in a reasonable time frame, or feels that the field would benefit significantly from the publication of an article on this topic.

___ Not accepted
The article is on a topic of limited relevance to the field and the journal, and requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several significant gaps in methodology, analysis, or theoretical or scholarly background, or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer has little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed in a reasonable time frame.

REVISION GUIDELINES

All papers published by HEP go through a revision process, some more extensive than others. Your revision process will depend on the reviews your submission has received by readers, and the recommendations they offer to the editors about whether your article is suitable for publication.

Overview of the review process
After submitting your article to HEP, the editors review it for its adherence to publication guidelines and its relevance to the journal. We may return the submission to you at this point if it does not meet these parameters. If the subject matter and composition of the article is deemed appropriate for HEP, we will send the article to two reviewers, with an attempt to match the expertise of reviewers with the subject area of your submission.

Reviews should be completed within 8 weeks of the submission of your article, and we work hard to meet this deadline. Please understand, however, that there are occasionally circumstances beyond the control of the editors that can delay the review of your submission. Should you have any questions or concerns about the review process, please do not hesitate to contact the editors.

Reviewers and the editors will register one of four recommendations after reviewing your submission:

___ Accept with minor revisions
The article is well researched and written and on a topic of importance to the field and the journal, with no significant gaps in methodology or analysis. The article may require small additions to its theoretical or scholarly background, or may need to be edited, but does not require any significant additional research or restructuring.

As the author, if you receive this recommendation and you wish to pursue publication, you must:

  • address the reviewers' concerns through a note to the editors identifying how and where in your article you have addressed their concerns. If you do not agree with a particular recommendation, please also include an explanation of why you have chosen not to address that concern.


Authors should understand that acceptance of their article is conditional upon satisfactory completion of revisions, and that upon resubmission, your article should be free of mechanical errors. If we do not find that it has been sufficiently revised, we will return your article to you with notes on what remains to be addressed.

If the editors find that your revisions are sufficient, your article will be formally accepted for publication.

___ Re-submit with significant revisions
The article is on a topic of importance to the field and the journal, but requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several significant gaps in methodology, analysis, or theoretical or scholarly background, or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer is confident that such revisions can be successfully completed in a reasonable time frame, or feels that the field would benefit significantly from the publication of an article on this topic.

As the author, if you receive this recommendation and you wish to pursue publication, you must:
  • address the reviewers' concerns through a note to the editors identifying how and where in your article you have addressed their concerns. If you do not agree with a particular recommendation, please also include an explanation of why you have chosen not to address that concern.


Authors should understand that acceptance of their article is conditional upon satisfactory completion of revisions, and that upon resubmission, your article should be free of mechanical errors. If we do not find that it has been sufficiently revised, we will return your article to you with notes on what remains to be addressed.

Depending on the issues identified in the original review, we may send your article back to reviewers to ensure that the revisions are appropriate. Every effort will be made to return your article to the original reviewers.

Once the editors find that your revisions are sufficient, your article will be formally accepted for publication.

___ Not accepted
The article is on a topic of limited relevance to the field and the journal, and requires significant additional research or re-writing before it will be suitable for publication. The review identifies several significant gaps in methodology, analysis, or theoretical or scholarly background, or identifies a need for the article to undergo significant re-organization or re-writing. The reviewer has little confidence that such revisions can be successfully completed in a reasonable time frame.

As an author, if you receive this recommendation, it is an indication that the article is not suitable for publication in HEP. HEP would nonetheless welcome other future 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.

  1. The submission has not been previously published nor is it before another journal for consideration; or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor.
  2. The submission file is written using standard word processing software (ideally Microsoft Word). The file DOES NOT contain the author's name, biography or contact information, and this information has been removed from the file's "Properties" section (in MS Word, under "File").
  3. All URL addresses in the text (e.g., http://pkp.ubc.ca) are activated and ready to click.
  4. The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); with supplementary files (figures, tables, etc.) clearly numbered and separate from the main text.
  5. The text meets this journal's formatting requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines found in About the Journal. If the journal section is peer reviewed, author identification has been removed, and "Author" and year have been used in the bibliography and footnotes, instead of authors' names, titles, etc. THE AUTHOR'S NAME HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE 'PROPERTIES' OF THE DOCUMENT, NO TITLE PAGE IS INCLUDED, AND THE AUTHOR'S NAME OR INFORMATION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE HEADER OR FOOTER OF THE PAPER.
 

Copyright Notice

Copyright for articles published in this journal is retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use, with proper attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.

 

Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.