Submission & Review

Please send in the documents as a PDF via email: submission (AT) nachwuchswissenschaftler (DOT) org.

All papers handed in are not allowed to be aditionally handed in to another journal, edited book, or a conference. Each manuscript will be checked according to plagiarism. Authors who offend against intellectual property rights and ownership policies will be excluded from publishing in this journal.

In prior to the review process one of the editors or an editor in collaboration with a ressort managing editor will decide about the acceptance of the article. The following review process targets on the improvement of the article. While major criticisms must be edited, minor criticisms can be argued upon to skip them. A double blind, peer-review process needs about 4 months, while a normal review shall be done in 2 month of time. Each reviewer is asked to fill out a predefined Review-Formular for each manuscript and send it back to the Editors. They will send it to the authors anonymized.

English Term Scope German Term Review Process
Full Paper * systematic review
* theoretical paper
* empirical paper
Artikel 1
Short Communication * brief statement of an original idea or a new insight from a research project
* empirical results of interest that do not suffice for a long paper
Kurzartikel 1
Research Proposal proposals written in order to apply for a grant Forschungsantrag 2
Study Protocol * theoretical outlook without final model
* empirical outlook without final results
Studienprotokoll 2
Working Paper paper that discusses a researcher’s opinion and has practical implications Arbeits- bzw. Diskussionspapier 3
Conference Proceedings discussion threads and/or results of a scientific conference Tagungsbericht 3
Poster poster presented on a conference Wissenschaftliches Poster 3
Review * software review
* book review
Rezension 3

Notes: There are three types of review process. The first one (1) is a double blind, peer-review. It is managed by one editorial manager in collaboration with 2 external reviewers (who can decide to be unanonymized). The second  type (2) is a partly open / partly blind review. The open review is made by one editor in chief in collaboration with an additional blind editorial manager. The third review type (3) is a fully open review process that is made openly by one editor in chief.