Guidelines for authors

Find below some of the requirements that must fulfill all manuscripts submitted to the journal. The Editorial Board will check these requirements before sending the manuscripts to the referees.

General requirements

  • The length of the manuscripts should be 3000-8000 words and must be written as a continuous (book style) narrative, not as a bullet list.
  • Only editable files such as Microsoft Word or Open Office will be accepted. PDF files will not be accepted for review.
  • Spelling can vary according to national usage, but should be internally consistent.
  • Authors should ensure the accuracy of the quotes, charts, tables and maps.
  • Graphics and images must be easy to visualize. We cannot improve the quality of images.
  • Refrain from including in the manuscript irrelevant images or graphics. Images or graphics that referees will consider irrelevant to the understanding of the narrative by readers will be deleted. If you wish to add images or graphics that are not directly related o the narrative, you can upload them as supplementary documents on the platform.
  • Keywords are very important for search engine positioning. To achieve a better dissemination of the work, please make sure your keywords are clear and precise.

Format Requirements

  • The manuscript should be written using Times New Roman, size 11p, single space.
  • The manuscript should not include neither the name of the authors, nor the institution for which they work, nor their biographies.
  • Graphics and images should be clear and easy to see. We can not improve the quality of images.
  • All images, graphics and tables must be accompanied by a title and a source.
  • All images, graphs and tables should be placed where they will appear in the text.
    • Avoid using advanced functions of Word, such as:

– Colored fonts and backgrounds.
– Drawing objects.
– Automatic tables of contents and indexes.
– Highlights, reliefs, shadows, and other complex functions of Word.

Bibliographic References

The references in the text must follow an abbreviated format (Author, Year: pp.), The full reference list shall appear at the end of the article. Footnotes will be used to clarify or expand some explanations. They shall be numbered consecutively in Arabic numerals, letter of 8p. size, and full justification. Efforts should be made to minimize the number of footnotes.

Whenever possible, include the DOI for each article in the bibliographic list, and indicate the URL if the cited work is open access. The citation style chosen by this journal is the APA’s (American Psychological Association).

The list of references should appear at the end, letter size 10p., single-space, with no blank lines between authors. References should look as follows:

  • Book by One Author:

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Book of Several Authors:

Blanché, R y Dubucs, J. (1970). La logique et son histoire. París: Armand Colin.

  • Collective Book by Editors or Coordinators:

Meerhoff, K. y Moisan, J. C. (eds.) (1997). Autour de Ramus: texte, théorie, commentaire. Québec: Nuit Blanche éditeur.

  • Journal Article:

Benoit, W. L. (1989). Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions. Argumentation and Advocacy, 26(2), 22-38.

  • Book Chapter:

Eemeren, F. H. van y Grootendorst, R. (1993b). The history of the argumentum ad hominem since the seventeenth century. En: E. C. W. Krabbe, R. J. Dalitz y P. A. Smit (eds.), Empirical Logic and Public Debate. Essays in Honour of Else M. Barth (pp. 49-68, Ch. 4). Amsterdam/Atlanta: Rodopi.

  • Several Works of an Author:

Walton, D. N. (1991). Begging the Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation. Nueva York: Greenwood.

—  (1999). One-Sided Arguments. A Dialectical Analysis of Bias. Albany: State University of New York Press.

—  (2001). Enthymemes, common knowledge, and plausible inference. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 34(2), 93-112.

The author may divide, where appropriate, the REFERENCES section in smaller sections such as Webography or Primary Sources (ancient, medieval writings).

Editorial Quality

  • The peer review process is rigorous in order to ensure the quality of the content published in the journal. We expect the authors to revise their texts following the suggestions of the evaluators. If the authors do not perform such reviews and do not submit comments back, the manuscript will be definitely rejected.
  • Some manuscripts may be of excellent quality, but be poorly written in English. This may be the case for authors whose native language is not English. When we receive a negative review on communicative quality, we may ask the author to resubmit a new version of the article. We cannot help the authors to re-write the content.
http://thehumansciences.com/journals/guidelines/
thehumansciences.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2019-43
64250
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:AZIDJWXYFLEF33UKQ2NSSV2SQZOMNXWL
<urn:uuid:74c98050-b506-4860-825e-e1ed3312a46f>
2019-10-23T05:19:06Z
217.160.167.169
text/html
sha1:YEWA3FN7XHXEGQW3RT652AICSXJ34EZD
<urn:uuid:b73be45b-8cc7-48e3-a1ed-6e533e067f8a>
http://thehumansciences.com/journals/guidelines/
response
<urn:uuid:20ea9aac-d7de-4551-83d5-e97aaabd6edf>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2019-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2019
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-65.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/