Submissions

Author Guidelines

We are keen to publish authors's work in a variety of forms including writing or video production. All submissions must be written in a scholarly manner and draw upon current literature. Typical formats include:

Opinion Pieces - short and thought provoking, stating a position and drawing on facts and evidence to support it (a maximum of 750 words)

Case Studies - based on projects that identify and deliver change, typically describing: the organisational and historical context, specifications of the project, discussion of pedagogy/practice, implementation, evaluation and lessons learnt (a maximum of 3000 words with around 6 references)

Research Articles - longer papers, providing a clear rationale for the study within the body of published research, an overview of the research methodology adopted, a presentation of findings, and a discussion of those findings in relation to existing knowledge (a maximum of 5000 words and multiple references).

Video submission - We welcome any of the above forms in equivalent video format, however submission should be visually exciting. Recording a talking head video is not sufficient. Rather, the medium of video should be selected only if the content of the submission would be better and more clearly communicated via video.

Book Reviews - critical overview of a book related to inclusive practice (a maximum of 750 words).

Technology Reviews - a critique or review of a technology application that support inclusive practice and reduce attainment gaps, outlining its application for learning and teaching and its strengths and weaknesses (a maximum of 1500 words).

Other formats - if you wish to submit in an alternative format, we are more than happy to be flexible and accessible, so please get in touch with your idea.

Submission format.

Submissions to JEIPC should adhere to the Journal's style of referencing both for citations within the text and for the reference list (see examples below) . Authors are responsible for precision, attention to detail, accuracy and consistency in referencing their papers, in order to assist readers in discoverability. In the reference list in particular, they should be meticulous in everything from punctuation, italicisation, use of single inverted commas where appropriate, the precise method for referencing online sources (and for presenting the date accessed) to ensuring that urls really do work! The word "online" should never appear in the reference list, as "Available at:" provides that information.

Authors should never use e.g. or "See for example" when citing; any citation is by its very nature, an example.

If in any doubt, authors should follow the examples given below and look at the Harvard referencing https://library-guides.ucl.ac.uk/harvard as well as looking at previous issues of the JEIPC for the style.

For the purposes of copyediting, authors should avoid formatting their reference lists or applying personally-chosen layouts to their submissions, as these have to be unpicked so that journal formatting can be applied. Submissions should be in Word, without any of Word's style formatting, and with all visual material inserted, without text-wrapping, where each figure should appear.

Abstracts should be included at the head of each submission so that they can be copyedited, but authors should be aware that the copyedited versions of the abstracts will be transferred to the metadata accompanying their article and not be published as part of the paper.

Reference list – essentially, the Harvard method, as used by JEIPC.

• List in alphabetical order by author’s name and then by date (earliest first),
• If more than one item has been published during a specific year by letter (1995a, 1995b etc.)
• Take information from the title page of a publication and not from the front cover.
• Include the elements and punctuation given in the examples below.
• The title of the publication should be: in italics for an edited book; not in italics but inside single set of inverted commas for a journal article (see below).

A book by a single author:

Baggini, J. (2002) Making Sense: Philosophy behind the headlines. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX

A book by two authors:

Searle, J. and Chomsky, N. (1997) The meaning of sense: critique and arguments. 105th edn. London: Wybourn. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX

Please note the format for any publication by several authors:

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. and Moore-Cherry, N. (2016)

A book by a corporate author (e.g. a government department or other organisation): Nursing and Midwifery Council (2003) Patient-centred care: a NMC position statement on patient involvement. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX

An edited book:

Baumeister, R. (ed.) (1999) The self in Social Psychology: Key readings in social psychology. Hove: Taylor and Francis. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX

A chapter in a book

Burnard, P. (1997) ‘The self and self awareness.’ In: Strugnell, C., Renzaho, A., Ridley, K. and Burns, C. (eds.) The Self in Society. London: Stanley Thornes, 17-28. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX

An article in a journal:

Valkimaki, A. (1993) ‘Patient information systems.’ British Journal of Nursing, 13(1), 43-5.

Wherever possible, please provide digital source for a journal article, precisely as follows, with curved brackets:

Available at: url (Accessed: 24 October 2021).

Please note the format for any publication by several authors:

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. and Moore-Cherry, N. (2016)

An article in a newspaper:

Sabo, M. (2003) ‘Fear of gun crime rising.’ Guardian, 26 October 2003, p.10. If no author name is provided then the publisher should be used instead. Guardian (2003) Public health in decline. Guardian, 24 October 2003, p.11. (Please always provide the digital source for a newspaper article, precisely as follows, with curved brackets:

Available at: url (Accessed: 30 November 2021).

A digital book or similar:

Panard, D. (2006) Equality and human rights. Available at: url (Accessed: 15 May 2020).

A television programme:

Julie through the looking glass. (2012). BBC 2, 4 July.

A video:

12 Angry Men. (1957) Directed by Sidney Lumet. Hollywood: MGM Entertainment.

CD ROMS:

Institute of Cancer Research (2000) A breath of fresh air: an interactive guide to managing breathlessness in patients with lung cancer. [CD Rom]. Sutton: Institute of Cancer Research.

Government publications

White Papers contain statements of Government policy

Green Papers put forward proposals for consideration and public discussion.

They are cited in the same way.

A White Paper

Department for Education and Skills (2002) 14-19 next steps: the future. Cm.3390. London: Stationery Office.

A Green Paper

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Extending Opportunities: raising standards. Cm 3854. London: Stationery Office.

An Act of Parliament

Great Britain. Education Act 2002: Elizabeth II. Chapter 25. London: The Stationery Office.

Generative AI

GenAI may not be named as an author on any publication in JEIPC 

Guidance on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence for Authors Submitting to the Journal of Educational Innovation, Partnership, and Change

The managing editors acknowledge the value of generative artificial intelligence tools (genAI) in academic research, communication, and dissemination. The following guidelines detail appropriate and inappropriate uses of genAI in article creation and dissemination and promote the ethical use of emerging technologies in publishing. GenAI cannot be named as an author on any publication in JEIPC.

For the purposes of publication in JEIPC, genAI refers to tools capable of automatically generating creative texts, images, or other content based on a human user's prompt or instruction. Please note that our genAI policy excludes grammar-checking tools, citation software, plagiarism detectors, or text-to-speech and speech-to-text tools. The use of these basic AI tools to enhance or refine manuscripts does not need to be disclosed or cited in submissions to JEIPC.

This guidance draws upon upon the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on “Authorship and AI Tools” (COPE, 2023). Accordingly, JEIPC authors must disclose any use of AI tools in a methods or acknowledgment section, specifying which tools were used, how they were employed, and for what purposes. Authors are accountable for any content generated using genAI tools in their manuscripts and are liable for any ethical violations.

However, as an author, you may utilise genAI tools to enhance the readability of your writing. You remain responsible for all content presented in your publication. If you use genAI to improve the quality of your writing you must acknowledge its use in an ‘acknowledgements’ section.

You must not use GenAI tools to generate the substantive content of your manuscript; their use should be limited to making editorial corrections

You should carefully evaluate the appropriateness of using genAI tools to generate various materials in the research process (e.g., test prompts and items). The large language models underpinning genAI tools can inherit biases from their training data and machine learning algorithms. Consequently, materials generated by these tools may carry biases or fail to accurately represent text or speech in real-world contexts. The appropriateness of genAI use will be assessed by JEIPC editors and reviewers. You should demonstrate critical awareness in your use of genAI tools, including acknowledging any limitations.

Generating data using genAI is prohibited. GenAI must not be used to fabricate or falsify data. These actions constitute serious research misconduct.

GenAI tools may be used for coding and analyzing data. However, the use of genAI to analyse qualitative data provided by research participants typically requires informed consent from those participants, indicating that their data will be analysed using genAI tools as part of the ethics approval process. When information is entered into genAI, the organization operating the genAI tools will likely have access to this data and may use it to further train the genAI model, posing potential data leak risks. Many institutions will have procured a genAI tool for use by staff and students. Please ensure any genAI tools comply with your institution’s procurement agreement and that work submitted will not be used for training purposes.

You should be aware of potential ethical issues, including how the use of genAI tools may impact the privacy of study participants, as well as risks to their own privacy and intellectual property. Additionally, you must consider copyright restrictions before uploading any published or unpublished documents or extracts into genAI tools. Any use of genAI for data analysis or coding must be disclosed in the manuscript, and authors are responsible for verifying the accuracy of the analysis.

References

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2023). Authorship and AI tools. COPE. https://publicationethics.org/cope-position-statements/ai-author