Author Guidelines

PSR includes theoretical, methodological and empirical papers that draw on, illustrate, defend, develop and critique the theory, explore the connections between theoretical concepts and methodological techniques and highlight important areas of application (such as health, the public understanding of science, education, social relations, identity, culture, religion). 

We encourage both original papers that focus solely on Social Representations Theory and original papers that develop connections with related fields such as communication, social constructionism, discourse analysis and various forms of psychology (societal psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, developmental psychology and political psychology). 

We also encourage commentaries on published papers as a means of developing discussion and constructive critique of the issues, concepts and methods central to Social Representations research. Please contact The Editors if you have an idea for a commentary. 

We also accept and encourage book reviews. Book reviews should include a summary of the book, of its main focus, arguments and structure, as well as a critical comment, with reference to main strengths and limitations, as appropriate. The main contact person for queries related with Book Reviews is Nikos Kalampalikis.

You can also propose a Special Issue - for more information see below the section on Special Issues. 

Papers will be considered for publication on the understanding that they are original work, have not been previously published elsewhere and are not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. PSR is committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. Please see below the PSR’s Guidelines on Publication Ethics for more information. 

Papers submitted for publication are entered into a double-blind peer review system and read by at least two reviewers as well as by one of the Editors. The identities of the reviewers are revealed between themselves to promote more critically constructive reviews. The Editors' decision is final. 

• Full papers should be between 3000 and 7000 words.
• Commentaries should not exceed 3000 words.
• Book reviews should not exceed 1500 words.
• References must be formatted forming the latest edition of the APA style of referencing.
• All submissions must be in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish. Submissions in French, Portuguese or Spanish should be accompanied by a version of the manuscript in English before publication. 

PROPOSING SPECIAL ISSUES

Want to propose a Special Issue?

If you would like to propose a special issue please contact the Editors (Sabine Caillaud and Susana Batel) with a one-to-two page synopsis of the theme of the Special issue, relevance for Social Representations, possible contributions and a timeframe. All proposals will be considered by the Editors.

We are happy to consider a broad range of issues, which may relate to:

• Theoretical concepts (e.g. Social identity; cognitive polyphasia);
• Methodological issues (e.g. Triangulation; the analysis of themes and representations);
• Fields of application (e.g. Health, Science, Education) and social issues (e.g., racism, populism, climate crisis).

AUTHOR GUIDELINES FOR TEXT FORMATTING

General

All submissions must be in English or Spanish (submissions in Spanish should be accompanied by a version of the manuscript in English before publication). The page layout should have a top margin of 3 cm and 2.5 cm for bottom, left and right margins. All text should be in black but images in colour will be accepted. Please use Times New Roman font and line spacing of 1.5.

Title, Authors, Abstract and Keywords

Title, sub-title and authors should all be left-aligned. Title (and sub-title) should be font size 18, bold and in Title Case, i.e. the first letter of every word should be uppercase. Authors should be font size 12, regular and in UPPER CASE. Author affiliation should be below the author, font size 12, regular and in Title Case.

Abstracts should not exceed 250 words. They should be indented both sides (left-1.25, right-15.5), justified and begin 3 line breaks after the last author line. The font should be size 11, regular.

Keywords (3 to 5) should be included below the abstract.

Main Text and Headings

The main text should be justified and start 3 line breaks after the last abstract line. The font should be size 12, regular. Italics should be used for in-text emphasis only.

It is not necessary to have an Introduction heading. If quotations are used to begin the main text, they should be italicised but not indented.

All headings should be left-aligned and font size 12. First level headings should be in bold and UPPER CASE. Second level headings should be in bold and Title Case. Third level headings should be in italics. The use of more than three levels for headings is discouraged. The first line of new paragraphs for every section should not be indented. Subsequent paragraphs should be indented without a line break.

Citations should follow APA guidelines. Long quotations (exceeding 40 words) should be separate from the main text and indented. Footnotes should appear at the bottom of the relevant page, indexed numerically in Arabic numbers (e.g. 1, 2, 3).

References, Figures, Images and Tables

References should be according to APA guidelines. They should be left-aligned, font size 12 and start 3 line breaks after the main text. The second and subsequent lines of each reference should be indented (0.5). If applicable, acknowledgments should be included at the end of the text, before references.

Please include brief author biographies (up to 100 words) after the reference list. These should state author names (in UPPER CASE), research interests, affiliation, status, and contact email. If an appendix is required it should come after the author biographies.

Any figures, images and tables should be included in the text. Figures should be saved and submitted as images (e.g. .tiff, .jpg, etc.) Figure and image headings should appear above the figure in font size 11. Table headings should appear above the table in font size 11. Table notes (e.g. significance level) should appear below the table in font size 10 and italics.

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Our publication ethics and publication malpractice statement is mainly based on the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (see Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website). The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive. We encourage our authors, reviewers and editors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. If you have any questions or concerns please also feel free to contact the Editor of the Journal.  

For Everyone - Authors, Reviewers and Editors

PSR and its authors, reviewers and editors should at all times:

• promote fairness and equality and oppose every type of discrimination;
• respect the confidentiality of others;
• be transparent about real or apparent competing interests;
• and promote the transparency of and respect for the academic record.

For Authors

• Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgment of sources

Authors should guarantee that their work is original and written by them, has not been previously published and has not been submitted to another journal, and that they approppriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. 

• Data reporting standards and data access and retention

Authors should ensure that the data presented is true and not manipulated. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Authors could be asked to provid the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. 

When an author discovers a significant error in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or Publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in form of an erratum.

Authors should guarantee that participants in their research consent for their data to be reported and published. Authors should be prepared to present evidence of ethical research approval and to provide answers about ethical aspects. 

• Authorship of the paper

Authors should ensure that all the authors of the paper are clearly identified, including ensuring that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication.

• Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should ensure that any real or apparent conflicting or competing interest is clearly stated on submission of their paper (including funding assistance). All sources of financial support for the paper should be disclosed.

For Reviewers

• Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. Reviews should be delivered in a timely way, according to the journal’s policies on that.

• Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

• Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted with views on the research to be expressed clearly with supporting arguments, free of any biases or discriminatory stances.

• Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work has not been cited nor referenced in the paper, or has not been so appropriately. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have knowledge. 

• Disclosure and conflict of interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the papers. If in doubt about whether a conflict exists, a reviewer should be transparent and seek the views of the journal editor.

For Editors

• Publication decisions

The editor(s) is responsible for deciding which of the paper submitted to the journal will be published. The decision will only be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, the study’s validity and its relevance to the journal’s scope.

The editor(s) is responsible to maintain and promote consistent ethical policies for his/her journal and to work with authors, reviewers and Editorial Board members as necessary to ensure that the journal’s ethics and publishing policies are applied.  In case of any concerns or if in doubt about whether a conflict exists, the editor should refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics.

• Confidentiality

The 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, as appropriate.

• Disclosure and conflicts of interest

The editor will recognise and plan for instances where he/she could have a competing interest or the appearance of a competing interest. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.

GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS

Please first see PSR's guidelines on publication ethics above. All reviewers are asked to comment on the following:

1. Conformity to the journal's scope

Does this paper engage with the literature on Social Representations in ways that exemplify, expand or critique aspects of the theory?

Will the paper be of interest to the Social Representations readership and stimulate interest and discussion?

2. Originality and scholarly contribution

Does the paper make an original contribution at the level of theory, methodology or empirical focus?

Does the paper develop new insight into existing conceptual debates, methodological conventions or a field of study?

Is there little original but some other contribution in the paper that is of value (such a scholarly review of existing material)?

3. Clarity and style of writing

Is the paper well-structured and is it easy to follow the argument?

Is it well-written and accessible to an international range of readers?

4. Methodology and analysis (if an empirical paper)

Is the methodology suitable for the research problem?

Is the design and method of analysis explained clearly?

Are limitations properly considered?

5. Comments

Please include comments for the author that will assist them in revising the paper, if necessary. Please remember that the more detailed your comments, the more useful they are, both for the authors and the editors. You may also want to include comments for the editor's attention only. Please make this clear and put these at the top of the review.

6. Please highlight your recommendation

- Accept as is. This is a paper of outstanding quality.

- Accept subject to minor revisions.

- Accept subject to major revisions.

- Reject as it is more suitable for another journal (please specify).

- Reject as it is not suitable for publication.