Submit to Us / FAQs

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

• Does IFJP consider submissions by graduate students, activists, and/or policymakers?

IFJP considers all submissions – authors from any discipline, global positionality, rank in academe or out of it. We aim to be an inclusive journal. Quality and consistency with the remit of the journal as assessed by external reviewers who are not aware of the identity of the author(s) determines acceptance.

We understand IFJP readers to be interested in many things, including (but not limited to) the link between the local and global; the experiences of activisms that are embedded in the grassroots; the theoretical insights made possible by this work; and a whole range of methodologies and data.

• How finished does a paper have to be before submission?

You should be submitting an article that has a sustained central argument with appropriate reference to the related literatures. It should build on feminist scholarship in your field (don’t make this work invisible). You should consider the most recent and the foundational literature. It should be largely free of typographical errors (we realize some mistakes happen).

• How do I transform my seminar or conference paper into a publishable article? [click to download]

• How important is the abstract?

Reviewers will decide whether to accept our invitation to review based on your abstract. Make sure it is very clear and free of typos. Do not use acronyms or abbreviations in abstracts. Abstracts should include the central argument and sources of evidence for empirical papers or sources of theoretical insight (or the inspiration) for theoretical papers.

• What is a literature review?

A literature review is not an annotated bibliography of what you have read in preparation for writing your article. Nor is it a summary of the already published work that asks or answers your question. Rather, a literature review is the part of your argument that clearly demonstrates the audience for the piece, those who are already in the conversation, and your contribution to it.

As you prepare the literature review, think carefully about both past and recent work in feminist (and related) scholarship. Use this opportunity to make feminist scholarship visible, thus engaging in a collective and ongoing conversation of which IFJP and your article are a part.

Further, as you situate your argument in “the” literature, imagine being a thought leader. While, of course, respecting that feminist scholarship is familiar to many who engage with your topic, also be attentive to race, national origin, and the ways that North American- and European-centrism can be re-inscribed even in our bibliographies. In other words, as appropriate to your field and topic, pay attention to both founding texts and recent work; pay attention to the gender, racial, and geographic diversity of the authors in your bibliography.

• Do I need to identify a gap in the literature?

Sometimes there are “gaps” in the literature and new scholarship can seek to “fill” these. However, this is not the only way to think about the purpose of your scholarship and oftentimes this is not an especially feminist approach to developing a research question because it is inherently conservative, letting what has come before define the landscape of what can be. Perhaps it is more feminist to build on what has been done rather than to identify its gaps. Think about how you can build on and complement the field. Or, consider that the “gap” might not be between two literatures in the field, but rather between the literature and lived experience.

• What is IFJP’s guidance on citational practices?

Citation, as Sara Ahmed reminds us in her book Living a Feminist Life (2007, 15–16), “is how we acknowledge our debt to those who came before; those who helped us find our way when the way was obscured because we deviated from the paths we were told to follow.” Standing on the shoulders of feminist giants, one might say. But there is, as we know, a deep complexity to the circulation of power in our knowledge creating institutions and practices. Feminist and critical scholars have worked hard to give light to or make visible swathes of ideas, beliefs, and values that have been so regularly ignored, displaced, or disregarded. Yet it remains the case that we inhabit a world of knowledge making that remains stickily attached to raced hierarchies, relentlessly (re)producing white-laced knowledge as the norm or standard. One of the central missions of IFJP is to work against this; thus we want to actively encourage and remind our authors and readers – and ourselves - to cite new voices from unfamiliar locations. It is still too seldom that we come across scholars from the more powerful locations citing work done in the Global South. Vice versa is of course commonplace. IFJP urges all contributors to try to make use of sources that are from as diverse arenas as is possible. 

Careful reading and writing is also key to our mission. Diverse citational and sourcing practices are core to this; we also advise the following: 

1. When directly using another’s words, please remember to use quotations marks around those words. If you need to adapt them slightly, put the adapted portion in square brackets. For example,  Ahmed’s quote mentioned above could be rephrased this way: “is how [scholars] acknowledge [their] debt to those who came before; those who helped [them] find [their] way when the way was obscured because [they] deviated from the paths [they] were told to follow” (2017, 15–16). While the writing style has been changed to fit more with the paragraph above, Ahmed’s meaning has not been changed and the quotation marks give her full credit for her idea.

2. When using another’s ideas in a way that summarizes them in your own words, please still cite those ideas. The citation should indicate the particular pages, chapter, or illustration of the work where those ideas can be found.

3. When discussing a now commonplace idea in feminist scholarship for which there are many possible citations, consider using “for example” to indicate that the handful of references you are including are not the full scope of the field.

• New ! Note on Research Ethics

  In the Editors’ Introduction to the 22.3 issue of IFJP, we address the topic of epistemic oppression with respect to feminist research ethics. We suggest that feminist thinking about research ethics extends beyond formal institutional and disciplinary standards to include considerations of epistemic injustice related that have been embedded in historical hierarchies in research practices. As appropriate, we invite authors to confirm not only that their research meets the ethical and legal guidelines of their country, their institution, and their study sites, but also that it, explicitly or implicitly, interrogates the norms of institutional ethical review where these may be designed to protect the author and their institution from scrutiny of egregious practices, but may be insufficient for raising all important ethical concerns. For feminist scholars and activists, ethical review norms imply attending to the historical practices of colonialism, racial inequalities, and gendered hierarchies in which the fields of social and political science research were developed. One form of epistemic oppression within academe is layering research methods on top of these hierarchies without deconstructing their foundations or making them visible for all to see. 

  If appropriate for your work, please include a footnote that references the formal ethical review body that reviewed your research, typically at your institution and as determined by the laws and norms of your study sites. Further, we welcome you to use that note to make visible the ethical practices you used to attend to epistemic hierarchies.

• My article is set in only one country. Can I still submit to IFJP?

IFJP relies on the author to frame their article as a contribution to feminist IR, including its specific area of feminist IR. The author’s framing of the paper, not the number of cases or the countries of the study, determines whether an article is appropriate for publication in IFJP.

• How strict is the word limit and what does it include?

Submissions should be between 5,000 and 9,000 words inclusive of bibliography. Revised articles also have a limit of 9,000 words. Authors whose methodological approaches require up to 12,000 words are encouraged to contact the editors with an abstract and a concise but compelling argument for why the approach requires the longer exposition.

• What does the review process entail for articles and how long does it take?

The Managing Editor reviews the initial submission for consistency with the journal’s submission guidelines.

Each submission is assigned to one of the four Editors-in-Chief (EICs). All final accepts and rejects are reviewed by a second EIC.

The assigned EIC reviews the initial submission for quality and consistency with the journal’s remit. This decision is normally made within days.

The assigned EIC then invites reviewers. The time to reviewers’ acceptance of the invitation to review can be quick; it can also be quite long. If the abstract is unclear, reviewers are reticent to accept. We assign between two and four reviewers on each paper.

Reviewers take on average less than a month to submit their reports. Special Issue submissions, Enloe Award nominees, and FTGS paper winner submissions are all expected to take longer.

The assigned EIC interprets the reviews and then writes a decision letter.

The revised version of a paper is treated in the same way as described above except that the reviewer time is faster because most reviewers of an original paper will agree to review a revised version.

If an article is rejected, authors should work with the feedback the reviewers have made and then submit to another journal. Authors should not submit to another journal until a rejection letter has been received.

If an article is accepted, it will be copyedited, typeset, published online, and queued for inclusion in a print issue.

• Can I suggest and/or reject reviewers?

The topic and content of your article will determine your reviewers. We welcome the submission of a cover letter with your manuscript and you may include recommended reviewers in that letter. Please note that recommended reviewers should not be colleagues who will be familiar with your work. IFJP peer reviews are anonymous.

• How do I submit a paper?

You should submit your paper through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal. Before submitting a paper online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

• What are the formatting specifications of an IFJP article?

See the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

• Does IFJP have a protocol for the use of gendered or universal pronouns?

Authors should do their best to use the correct gender identity of those discussed in their articles. If this is not known, we encourage the use of universal “they.”

• Can I assume that my reader knows what I mean by “feminist lens,” “gender lens,” or other feminist phrases?

No. There are lots of feminisms. There is no “feminist lens” or “gender lens.” Consider situating your ontological, epistemological, or methodological framework in the context of the relevant specifics of the feminist landscape.

On a related matter, people do not necessarily read an article from beginning to end. They may skim it before they decide to read it. Avoid using terms defined in unique ways just for your paper and try to avoid acronyms (even acronyms that you define in the text) for your ideas. For example, WID for Women in Development is fine, but NFT for New Feminist Theory is not. Where an acronym seems necessary, be sure to define it at first use.

• Does the journal have a policy about the use of passive voice?

The passive voice is a stylistic form of writing that often obscures agency. It can obscure your agency, the agency of the scholars you cite, or the agency of your research subjects. We do not have a policy about the use of the passive voice, but the articles of IFJP need to be clear and the use of the passive voice generally makes writing about politics less clear.

• Can I cite authors published in other languages, particularly in the theoretical framing/literature review of my piece?

The Editors-in-Chief of IFJP are concerned about the dominance of English-language journals in citation indices as a matter of global and feminist politics (see e.g. The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals). We strongly encourage you to cite those authors who have developed the scholarship on your topic regardless of the language of that work. Your reviewers will likely be familiar with that work and would expect you to be aware of it.

• If English is not my first language, what is the support for copyediting my piece? OR If English is not my first language, at what point should I pay for someone to copyedit my piece? 

The Editors-in-Chief of IFJP are concerned about the dominance of English-language journals in citation indices as a matter of global and feminist politics (see e.g. The Dangers of English as Lingua Franca of Journals). As with all scholarship, your article will be reviewed by specialists in your field and these will likely include non-native English-speaking scholars as well. In order to ensure that language idiom isn’t an obstacle to comprehension, we will do our best to ensure that one of the reviewers is familiar with the first language of the author. When the English is such that the author’s point cannot be understood—that is, if the language is such that the intended scholarly contribution of the piece cannot be assessed—the paper will be rejected.

Therefore, as a matter of advice, before submitting your article for review, just as you would have a colleague in your field read your scholarship before submitting, you might ask a colleague for whom English is a first language to read for clarity and advise you on whether your particular piece needs copyediting for English idiom. If the scholarly merit shines through and your piece is accepted but language difficulties remain, you will be given a “Conditional Accept” decision in order to polish the language.

• How does IFJP reach a global audience, given that English-language dominance perpetuates and creates even more problematic language hierarchies?

After acceptance, authors are invited to submit abstracts in up to two languages in addition to the required English for all manuscripts. The author commits to copyediting, proofreading, and being responsible for the caliber and correctness of the languages.

• Does IFJP review books in languages other than English? If I know of a key text in another language, how can I bring it to IFJP's attention?

Yes. Please contact the Book Review Editors, Ebru Demir and Elisabeth Olivius

• What should I do if I disagree with a reviewer?

Your reviewers have spent thoughtful time on your review. Your reviewers have probably read the paper more carefully than any other reader will. Not all reviewers have a gentle tone and even gentle-toned reviews can be tough to take. But take a breath, and try to think carefully about what they are trying to tell you. They may have misread something (in which case you should try to clarify it). They may have understood what you were trying to do correctly, but offered a constructive criticism with which you disagree.

You are the author. Your reviewers are helping you to get a piece that you submitted thinking that was ready for publication actually ready for publication. No matter what they say, you need to address their concerns by (1) changing what you say, improving the data, methods, or analysis, etc., (2) changing how you say or position it, or (3) explaining in the cover letter to the assigned Editor-in-Chief and reviewers why you did not do so. If you choose Route 3, try to take into account the time and intent of the reviewer.

Generally, revisions are less responses to little things. This is an opportunity to rethink your work in your own voice prompted by the reviewers’ suggestions.

• How should I approach an R&R where the reviewers do not agree with each other?

Take very seriously your reviewers’ reflections. If they disagree, ask yourself: “What about my exposition and the field of feminist IR leads these reviewers to have different readings of (1) what I have done, and (2) what I should do to improve my paper in order to make it publishable?” Your Editor-in-Chief has read those competing reviews and may offer you guidance as to how to navigate those differences, but YOU are the author. You decide. You can explain your decision in the cover letter, but ultimately, the letter cannot replace addressing the underlying issue in the paper itself. So in the cover letter you might say, “R1 said xyz; R2 said abc. I take these to be different interpretations of the same problem with the paper which I understand to be efg, and so I have revised Section B to this end.” But the solution in the paper does not reference the competing reviewers, but rather learns from them, and speaks to them and to others.

Most of the competing interpretations of a paper that we see come from papers that have not articulated their main arguments with sufficient clarity and do not seem to have been through a significant engagement with the field in conferences or workshops. If you get competing interpretations that surprise you, you might consider finding a group of colleagues willing to discuss the paper with you before you resubmit it. If you do not have such an intellectual community, you might reach out to your Editor-in-Chief for guidance.

• I have received an R&R from IFJP. How finished should my paper be when I resubmit it?

Every time you submit to a journal, you should be submitting work that you understand is ready for publication. Sometimes an R&R gets a subsequent R&R (R2). There are three main reasons that this can happen: (1) when revising a paper, the author introduces new material; (2) one or both of the original reviewers was not available and a new reviewer reads with fresh eyes and sees something new; (3) one or more of the reviewers do not feel that the revisions are complete or satisfactory but do continue to believe that the paper will ultimately be publishable. Regardless, when you revise your article, you are not “fixing” the things that the reviewers have highlighted. Rather, you are rewriting your paper for publication. Do not submit your revision thinking “I hope this is what they want.” You are not writing for your reviewers. You are writing for the audience of the journal, always.

Most authors have a colleague read the reviews and the revisions before resubmitting.

• How long do I have to submit a revised paper following an R&R decision?

Your R&R decision letter will give you a deadline. We would like you to complete these revisions by the deadline, but it is more important that you have the opportunity to do your best work. If you need more time, please respond to your letter with a proposed alternative date.

• How do I make all of the changes asked for within the word limit? 

It is hard to offer general advice on this puzzle, but we offer this FAQ to recognize that for IFJP authors, as for all authors, this is one of the greatest challenges in responding to feedback. In general, instead of taking feedback as an invitation to add to your paper, remember that the revision process is really an opportunity for a rewrite. You should reread your entire paper in light of the reviewer comments. It will be easier to revise if your original submission was not close to the limit. A word limit is a boundary not a goal. Try to be well under the limit; your article will be more likely to be read and read all the way through. 

Here are some more concrete suggestions:

Write out a list of what your paper needs to do. Then, look at your abstract. Does your abstract promise to do what you’ve been asked? If you can write what your paper is about clearly in the abstract, you will be able to write a paper within the word length.

Perhaps you have been asked to do a more thorough review of what others have written about your topic in order to better situate your argument. This will require rewriting this discussion so that you can cover more in a more consolidated way. Your reviewers were not asking for more names alone. They were asking for more engagement. This does not necessarily mean adding more paragraphs; it means treating the existing scholarship well so that it is clear to your reader how your contribution fits with and potentially challenges what they already know. Look at other articles in the journal to see how others have dealt with this challenge.

If you have a complex methodology that reviewers have asked you to explain in more detail, think carefully about what part can be explained briefly and what requires detail. Again, look at other articles in the journal that use similar methodologies and see how they do it.

Often, reviewers want a better contextualization of an argument and a better exposition of the methods. Sometimes, they want more explicitly reasoned and explanatory analysis. If this is the case, then you will need to tighten your earlier sections to make room for more analysis. If you are familiar with the literature, you will know what is familiar to most readers and what is new to them. Build on what they know to show them what is new.

As a final note, a reviewer will not note every single thing about the paper that concerns them. Remember that reviewers are your academic peers, rather than copy-editors or teachers. Authors who take the R&R process as an opportunity to re-present  their argument, evidence, and/or analysis are generally more successful than those who treat the R&R feedback as an inclusive checklist of all that needs to be done to make the article ready for publication. 

Remember: you are the author. These are your ideas and you should maintain your voice. Talk through the changes you are considering with someone if you can. Share the reviews; share your proposed approach. Offer to do the same for that person when they need a sounding board. Have a plan that you feel confident about before you start revising.

• My paper has been rejected by another journal. Can I submit it to IFJP?

YES! Every good article has a home. Maybe IFJP is the home for yours. Read the journal and see if it has published work on your topic, with your methodology, or by authors that you cite in your paper. See if the fit is right.

• My paper has been rejected by IFJP. Can I submit to IFJP again?

YES! But not the same paper. We encourage you to send us your next work. Every good article really does have a home. Although IFJP wasn’t the home for your last article, maybe it is the home for your next one. Read the journal and see if it has published work on your topic, with your methodology, or by authors that you cite in your paper. See if the fit is right.

• I have an idea for a Conversations article. Where do I send it? How complete does it have to be?

The Conversations Co-Editors are responsible for overseeing the Conversations section for each issue of IFJP. The Conversations Co-Editors welcome individual inquiries, and are eager to explore innovative ideas for themes and topics. Please be in touch with the Conversations Co-Editors to discuss proposed Conversations topics. You can contact them here: Meghana V. Nayak and Sara Shroff.

Submit your Conversations article through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal as per the normal submission process, taking care to select the option “Discussion” rather than “Research Article”. Before submitting a Conversations article online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

• What is the scope of a Conversations article?

The aim of the Conversations section is to offer space and opportunity to make strong theoretical and practical contributions to feminist debates that do not necessarily take standard academic forms and include a “dialogic” element. Examples may include interviews with prominent or early-career scholars, practitioners, and activists; sharing reactions, input, and ideas by people interviewed for a project; and imagined dialogues/interruptions/interventions with scholarship. Conversations may have occurred between two or more people, be imagined with others or with versions of oneself, or be in other formats, including speculative fiction. Authors may submit photo essays, artistic pieces, poetry, song lyrics, and creative and cultural production of works that explicitly invite and engage with ongoing conversations about various themes and topics. The Conversations Editors work to encourage diversity of content in terms of format, topic, author location, and seniority.

• How is a Conversations article different from a standard article published in the journal?

Conversations pieces are shorter in length (usually 1,500–3,000 words) and do not necessarily utilize conventional academic methodologies or formats. They may include references and should where appropriate.

• How long should Conversations articles be?

Each issue, the Conversation section is made up of two to four Conversations articles of 1,500–3,000 words. Occasionally we might run longer multi-authored Conversations, up to 8,000 words in total. Feel free to reach out to the Conversations Editors if you have additional questions.

• Do pictures and other non-textual media count towards the word count?

Yes. A half-page image counts for 350 words and a full-page one for 500 words. When you submit, please include your images as separate files (not embedded in a Word document) with callouts in the text to show where you would like them to be positioned. It is also helpful if you include a separate document with captions for the images, including any information about permissions and credits to their creators that is necessary. Further information regarding images and non-textual media can be found in the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

• How are Conversations articles reviewed? What can I expect to happen?

The Conversations internal review process is characterized by a collaborative process of thoughtful engagement and the provision of feedback by the Conversations Editors. The final submission is reviewed by an Editor-in-Chief. This process ensures that each piece is original, interesting to IFJP’s audience, and of a publishable standard. We strive to provide feedback within three to four weeks of submission. Time of publication once the submission is accepted will vary, as it largely depends on the number and themes of other submissions. Conversations pieces are not externally peer reviewed and thus are appropriate venues for experimentation and exploration.

• What kind of poetry does IFJP consider for publication? 

IFJP's Conversations Section is seeking poetry submissions that appeal to the aesthetic, sensory, and emotive aspects of experience. We welcome pieces that enable readers to “know” through experience in an aesthetic register. Like other Conversations pieces poetry submissions follow the normal internal review process and do not “count” as peer reviewed. Such process ensures that each piece appeals to a wide range of aesthetic and emotive sensibilities, and is interesting and moving to IFJP’s audience in general.

• Can I volunteer to write a Book Review or Review essay

Book reviews are widely read and can define the discursive dimensions of our field. Our reviewers make significant contributions to our intellectual community through identifying emergent and innovative literature, and through contributing to thoughtful and critical intellectual exchange, a function that is vital to the vigor of our discipline.

We welcome three types of contributions to the book review section: book reviews, review essays, and essays that rethink the canon of feminist scholarship. Book reviews engage with an individual, recently published piece of work, briefly describing its content and critically evaluating and locating its contributions to global feminist scholarship and to particular bodies of literature. Review essays discuss several texts on the same theme and bring them into conversation with each other, aiming either to explore a recent debate or emerging research field that has generated a range of new publications, or to survey the best of the literature covering a more established area of research. Essays that rethink the canon aim to critically rethink and reassess the established canon of feminist global political scholarship and its boundaries, and provides space to also engage with books that are not recently published. These essays may aim to rethink the established literature on a particular topic in light of recent events or new publications, or engage with books that have been marginalized by existing disciplinary boundaries and explain why these ought to be essential reading for feminists working on global issues.

All types of contributions can engage with books published in English as well as books published in other languages, although contribution to the book review section must we written in English. Moreover, both types of essays might also include material that is published not only in books but also in articles as appropriate to the cutting-edge work discussed in the essay.

Contact the Book Review Editors, Ebru Demir and Elisabeth Olivius, to propose the book or books you would like to review. A single book review is about 750 words. The appropriate length of a review essay or rethinking the canon essay should be discussed with the Book Review Editors.

Submit your review through the IFJP ScholarOne Portal as per the normal submission process, taking care to indicate that it is a book review as opposed to an article. Before submitting a book review online, make sure to edit it thoroughly for language and clarity, and format it to correspond to the Taylor & Francis guidelines.

• I have an idea for a Special Issue. Where do I send the proposal? How complete does it have to be? 

IFJP is part of the vibrant conversations about feminism, gender and global politics and recognizes the need to support focused conversations that offer incisive critiques of hegemonic knowledges and power-laden systems, and are a creative source for imagining worlds beyond the current cataclysm. As such, we welcome Special Issue/Section Proposals that nurture the journal as a robust dialogic and collaborative space of accountability and transformation that challenges global injustice and structural and epistemic silencing and oppression. We seek to amplify feminist voices and ideas in all their diversity, reclaiming feminist theory and knowledge production to undermine intersecting global hierarchies.

We encourage those submitting such proposals to consider whether your subject and timing would recommend a Special Issue or a Special Section.

Number of Papers: A full Special Issue consists of of five to eight articles; Special Sections include three to four articles. Each article should be a maximum of 9,000 words, including all text, notes and references but excluding the abstract(s). As some papers may not make it through the review process to acceptance, we recommend arranging the submission of around eight to 12 papers for a full Special Issue, and four to seven papers for a Special Section.

Timing: IFJP issues an annual call for proposals for Special Issues/Sections. The current submission round closes on January 31, 2025. Each article will be published online once it is through production and thus available for citation before it is published within a particular issue.

Call For Papers (CFP): We are happy to receive proposals with an open CfP or those that arise from a working project among a specific set of authors. Your proposal should specify the desired timing of the call.

Editing: If your Special Issue/Section is accepted, one of the Editors-in-Chief of IFJP will be assigned to work closely with the submitting editor on the project.

Article collection: Though it is not required, we encourage you to review the history of IFJP on your topic to propose a number of articles that could be made free to access for a period of time surrounding the publication of your Special Issue/Section.

•  Where do I send the proposal? How complete does it have to be?

Colleagues interested in proposing a Special Issue/Section are invited to contact the Editors-in-Chief at ifjp@cardiff.ac.uk. In order to be assessed, proposals should include all of the following elements:

Specification of whether it is a Special Issue or a Special Section

The rationale for the Special Issue/Section

Contributions to the literature

Proposed number of articles and length

CfP or the abstracts of proposed papers

Bios of editors/authors as appropriate

Suggestions for potential reviewers for each paper

Proposed timeline

Any previously published IFJP material you would propose for a simultaneous Article Collection (optional)

Possible books for associated Book Reviews section

Possible topics for associated Conversations section

Before submission, Special Issue/Section authors should receive approval of the essay from the Special Issue/Section editor. Articles submitted for consideration for a Special Issue/Section will undergo the standard review process (see the section on Submissions for more information about the process).

• Who can publish on the blog?

Under the current IFJP Editorial Team, the blog is primarily an author blog, featuring posts by those who have published an article in the journal. As such, it is a place to share the insights from that article with a wider audience and generate interest in the published paper. Occasionally the blog also publishes pieces from members of the editorial team related to upcoming conferences, journal issues, or calls for submissions. Under the previous IFJP Editorial Team, as you can see in republished posts from the archive, the blog also served other purposes, but there are currently no plans to expand the scope of the blog.

If you would like to contact the Editors of Digital Media, you can e-mail us here.

• What should be included in my blog post?

Your blog post should relate closely to the contents of your published article, including, for example, objectives, critical context, findings and conclusions. You can find information about how to write a blog post based on an academic paper here. If you’re able to tie the paper to a relevant recent news event or a particularly topical issue, that would be ideal. 

• What are the technical details I should keep in mind when writing my blog post?

The post should be between 500 and 800 words in length and be written in easy-to-understand jargon-free language. Please include relevant links and one or two photos with the post. You can find details about copyright and where to find fair use photos here. One quick way to search for photos is to try the Create Commons licensed photos on Flickr. Please also send an author photo and a two- or three-sentence biography that we can include with your blog post. 

•   Can I republish my IFJP blog post somewhere else?

Sure! Just link back to the original IFJP blog post.

Last updated January 13, 2021