Submission Preparation ChecklistAs part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in OpenOffice, Microsoft Word, RTF, or WordPerfect document file format.
- Where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
- The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point font; employs italics, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.
- If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed.
Muslim Politics Review, published two times a year since 2022, is a peer-reviewed journal, and dedicated to disseminate both scholarly research and critical reflection on Muslim texts, history, and societies across the globe.
Articles should be original, research-based, unpublished and not under review for possible publication in other journals. All submitted papers are subject to review of the editors, editorial board, and blind reviewers. Submissions that violate our guidelines on formatting or length will be rejected without review.
Articles should be written in Englishbetween approximately 6000-8000 words including text, all tables and figures, notes, references, and appendices intended for publication. All submission must include 200-250 words abstract and 3 keywords.
All notes must appear in the text as citations. In matter of bibliographical style, Muslim Politics Review follows the APSA style.
The article that will be submitted in this journal should contain:
- Information of article
Title: no more than 16 words; Author(s) name: is fully writen without any title; Institution: is completely stated, including the institution name; Corresponding author: includes name & email address
An abstract is a brief, comprehensive summary of the contents of the article; it allows readers to survey the contents of an article quickly and, like a title, it enables persons interested in the document to retrieve it from abstracting and indexing databases. Most scholarly journals require an abstract. Consult the instructions to authors or web page of the journal to which you plan to submit your article for any journal-specific instructions. A well-prepared abstract can be the most important single paragraph in an article. Most people have their first contact with an article by seeing just the abstract, usually in comparison with several other abstracts, as they are doing a literature search. Readers frequently decide on the basis of the abstract whether to read the entire article. The abstract needs to be dense with information. By embedding key words in your abstract, you enhance the user's ability to find it. Do not exceed the abstract word limit of the journal to which you are submitting your article. Word limits vary from journal to journal and typically range from 200 to 250 words.
Keywords: low case, comma, paper template, abstract, keywords, introduction
This template is designed to assist Author in preparing manuscript; it is an exact representation of the format expected by the editor. To use this template, please just Save As this MS Word file to your document, then copy and paste your document here. To copy and paste the text to this template document, please use â€œSpecial Pasteâ€ and choose â€œUnformated Textâ€.
All papers submitted to the journal should be written in good English. Authors for whom English is not their native language are encouraged to have their paper checked before submission for grammar and clarity. English language and copyediting services can be provided by: International Editing and Asia Editing. The work should not have been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. The official language of the manuscript to be published in MPR journal is English.
In Introduction, Authors should state the objectives of the work at the end of introduction section. Before the objective, Authors should provide an adequate background, and very short literature survey in order to record the existing solutions/method, to show which is the best of previous researches, to show the main limitation of the previous researches, to show what do you hope to achieve (to solve the limitation), and to show the scientific merit or novelties of the paper. Avoid a detailed literature survey or a summary of the results.
Materials and methods should make readers be able to reproduce the experiment. Provide sufficient detail to allow the work to be reproduced. Methods already published should be indicated by a reference: only relevant modifications should be described. Do not repeat the details of established methods.
It is both conventional and expedient to divide the Method section into labeled subsections. These usually include a section with descriptions of the participants or subjects and a section describing the procedures used in the study. The latter section often includes description of (a) any experimental manipulations or inter-ventions used and how they were delivered-for example, any mechanical apparatus used to deliver them; (b) sampling procedures and sample size and precision; (c) measurement approaches (including the psychometric properties of the instruments used); and (d) the research design. If the design of the study is complex or the stimuli require detailed description, additional subsections or subheadings to divide the subsections may be warranted to help readers find specific information.
Include in these subsections the information essential to comprehend and replicate the study. Insufficient detail leaves the reader with questions; too much detail burdens the reader with irrelevant information. Consider using appendices and/or a supplemental website for more detailed information.
Participant (Subject) Characteristics
Appropriate identification of research participants is critical to the science and practice of psychology, particularly for generalizing the findings, making comparisons across replications, and using the evidence in research syntheses and secondary data analyses. If humans participated in the study, report the eligibility and exclusion criteria, including any restrictions based on demographic characteristics.
Specify the research design in the Method section. Were subjects placed into conditions that were manipulated, or were they observed naturalistically? If multiple conditions were created, how were participants assigned to conditions, through random assignment or some other selection mechanism? Was the study conducted as a between-subjects or a within-subject design?
- Result and Discussion
Results should be clear and concise. The results should summarize (scientific) findings rather than providing data in great detail. Please highlight differences between your results or findings and the previous publications by other researchers.
The discussion should explore the significance of the results of the work, not repeat them. A combined Results and Discussion section is often appropriate. Avoid extensive citations and discussion of published literature.
In discussion, it is the most important section of your article. Here you get the chance to sell your data. Make the discussion corresponding to the results, but do not reiterate the results. Often should begin with a brief summary of the main scientific findings (not experimental results). The following components should be covered in discussion: How do your results relate to the original question or objectives outlined in the Introduction section (what)? Do you provide interpretation scientifically for each of your results or findings presented (why)? Are your results consistent with what other investigators have reported (what else)? Or are there any differences?
After presenting the results, you are in a position to evaluate and interpret their implications, especially with respect to your original hypotheses. Here you will examine, interpret, and qualify the results and draw inferences and conclusions from them. Emphasize any theoretical or practical consequences of the results. (When the discussion is relatively brief and straightforward, some authors prefer to combine it with the Results section, creating a section called Results and Discussion.)
Open the Discussion section with a clear statement of the support or nonsupport for your original hypotheses, distinguished by primary and secondary hypotheses. If hypotheses were not supported, offer post hoc explanations. Similarities and differences between your results and the work of others should be used to contextualize, confirm, and clarify your conclusions. Do not simply reformulate and repeat points already made; each new statement should contribute to your interpretation and to the reader's understanding of the problem.
Your interpretation of the results should take into account (a) sources of potential bias and other threats to internal validity, (b) the imprecision of measures, (c) the overall number of tests or overlap among tests, (d) the effect sizes observed, and (e) other limitations or weaknesses of the study. If an intervention is involved, discuss whether it was successful and the mechanism by which it was intended to work (causal pathways) and/or alternative mechanisms. Also, discuss barriers to implementing the intervention or manipulation as well as the fidelity with which the intervention or manip ulation was implemented in the study, that is, any differences between the manipulation as planned and as implemented.
Acknowledge the limitations of your research, and address alternative explanations of the results. Discuss the generalizability, or external validity, of the findings. This critical analysis should take into account differences between the target population and the accessed sample. For interventions, discuss characteristics that make them more or less applicable to circumstances not included in the study, how and what outcomes were measured (relative to other measures that might have been used), the length of time to measurement (between the end of the intervention and the measurement of outcomes), incentives, compliance rates, and specific settings involved in the study as well as other contextual issues.
End the Discussion section with a reasoned and justifiable commentary on the importance of your findings. This concluding section may be brief or extensive provided that it is tightly reasoned, self-contained, and not overstated. In this section, you might briefly return to a discussion of why the problem is important (as stated in the introduction); what larger issues, those that transcend the particulars of the subfield, might hinge on the findings; and what propositions are confirmed or disconfirmed by the extrapolation of these findings to such overarching issues.
Conclusions should answer the objectives of research. Tells how your work advances the field from the present state of knowledge. Without clear Conclusions, reviewers and readers will find it difficult to judge the work, and whether or not it merits publication in the journal. Do not repeat the Abstract, or just list experimental results. Provide a clear scientific justification for your work, and indicate possible applications and extensions. You should also suggest future experiments and/or point out those that are underway.
Hisakata, Rumi, Shinâ€™ya Nishida, and Alan Johnston. 2016. â€œAn Adaptable Metric Shapes Perceptual Space.â€ Current Biology 26(14): 1911â€“15. http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(16)30544-9 (October 3, 2016).
Hogue, Christopher W. V. 2001. â€œStructure Databases.â€ In Bioinformatics, Life Sciences Series, eds. Andreas D. Baxevanis and B. F. Francis Ouellette. New York, NY: Wiley-Interscience, 83â€“109.
Musk, Elon. 2006. â€œThe Secret Tesla Motors Master Plan (Just between You and Me).â€ Tesla Blog. https://www.tesla.com/blog/secret-tesla-motors-master-plan-just-between-you-and-me (September 29, 2016).
Sambrook, Joe, and David William Russell. 2001. Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual. 3rd ed. Cold Spring Harbor, NY: CSHL Press.
The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.