1. General Formatting Requirements

Authors should observe the following general formatting principles:

• Manuscripts should preferably be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) or LaTeX format.
• The manuscript should use a clear and legible academic font, preferably Times New Roman, Calibri, or Arial, generally in 12-point size.
• Text should preferably be double-spaced throughout the manuscript to facilitate editorial and peer-review annotation.
• Margins should generally be 1 inch (2.54 cm) on all sides.
• Pages should be numbered consecutively, preferably in the bottom-right corner.
• Section headings and subheadings should be organized in a clear and consistent hierarchical structure.
• Authors should maintain consistent terminology, abbreviations, capitalization, numbering, and citation practices throughout the manuscript.
• Mathematical equations, symbols, and specialized terminology should be presented clearly and consistently.

These formatting provisions are intended primarily to facilitate editorial assessment and peer review and do not necessarily represent the final typesetting specifications of an IARP journal.

2. Recommended Manuscript Structure

The following structure is recommended for original research articles. Depending on the nature of the submission, certain sections may be combined, omitted, or modified.

2.1 Title Page

The title page should contain:

• Manuscript title: concise, informative, specific, and representative of the principal subject or research problem.
• Author names: complete names of all authors in the appropriate order.
• Institutional affiliations: department, institution/university, city, country, and other relevant institutional information.
• Corresponding author: name, institutional affiliation, postal address, and email address.
• ORCID iDs: ORCID identifiers for all authors are strongly encouraged.
• Funding information: applicable funding agencies, grants, project numbers, or institutional support.
• Acknowledgment information: where applicable, relevant contributions or institutional assistance may be identified.

The title should be sufficiently precise to facilitate academic discoverability, indexing, and citation.

2.2 Abstract

The abstract should provide a concise and self-contained overview of the manuscript.

Where appropriate, it should summarize:

• the research background or problem;
• the principal objective or research question;
• the methodology or analytical approach;
• the principal findings; and
• the principal conclusion or implication.

As a general recommendation, abstracts should normally contain approximately 150–250 words, although the requirements of individual journals or article categories may differ.

The abstract should:

• be understandable independently of the main text;
• avoid unnecessary technical terminology;
• avoid citations unless essential;
• minimize the use of unexplained abbreviations; and
• accurately reflect the content of the full manuscript.

2.3 Keywords

Authors should provide approximately 4–6 keywords or key phrases that accurately represent the central concepts, themes, methodology, population, or subject area of the study.

Keywords should be selected with consideration for academic indexing, database retrieval, and discoverability.

2.4 Introduction

The Introduction should establish the scholarly context and rationale of the research. It should normally:

• introduce the broader research context;
• identify the research problem, knowledge gap, or unresolved issue;
• summarize relevant scholarly literature;
• establish the rationale for undertaking the study;
• state the research objectives, questions, or hypotheses, where applicable; and
• clarify the significance and potential contribution of the research.

The Introduction should provide sufficient context without unnecessarily reproducing material presented in the literature review.

2.5 Materials and Methods / Methodology

The methodology should provide sufficient information to enable qualified researchers to understand, evaluate, and, where appropriate, reproduce the study.

Depending on the research design, this section may address:

• research design and theoretical framework;
• study setting or research context;
• population and sample;
• sampling strategy and selection criteria;
• data sources and collection procedures;
• instruments, measures, or research tools;
• experimental procedures;
• analytical framework;
• statistical methods;
• qualitative or quantitative analytical procedures;
• software, databases, or computational tools; and
• data management and quality-control procedures.

Where applicable, authors should clearly report:

• ethical approval or institutional review;
• informed consent procedures;
• confidentiality and data-protection measures;
• animal welfare or laboratory compliance; and
• other relevant ethical safeguards.

The methodological description should be sufficiently transparent to permit appropriate critical appraisal and methodological replication.

2.6 Results / Findings

The Results section should present the principal findings of the study in a clear, systematic, and objective manner.

Authors should:

• present findings in a logical sequence;
• report relevant statistical or analytical results;
• use tables and figures where they improve comprehension;
• avoid unnecessary repetition of information; and
• distinguish clearly between observed findings and subsequent interpretation.

Where appropriate, results may be organized into logical subsections corresponding to the research questions, hypotheses, experiments, or analytical stages.

For qualitative, theoretical, conceptual, or review-based studies, an alternative heading such as Findings, Analysis, or Results and Discussion may be appropriate.

2.7 Discussion

The Discussion should interpret the findings in relation to the research objectives and the existing body of scholarship.

Authors should consider:

• the meaning and significance of the findings;
• their relationship to previous research;
• areas of convergence or divergence with existing scholarship;
• theoretical and/or practical implications;
• methodological strengths;
• limitations of the study; and
• appropriate directions for future research.

The Discussion should remain evidence-based and should not extend beyond what can reasonably be supported by the study's methodology and findings.

2.8 Conclusion

The Conclusion should provide a concise synthesis of the principal findings and their broader significance.

A strong conclusion should:

• directly address the research objectives or questions;
• summarize the principal contribution of the study;
• identify significant implications where appropriate; and
• avoid introducing substantive findings or evidence that have not been presented and discussed previously.

2.9 Acknowledgments

The Acknowledgments section may recognize individuals, institutions, research groups, funding agencies, or other parties whose contributions do not meet the established criteria for authorship.

Where applicable, authors should also disclose:

• financial assistance;
• research grants;
• institutional support;
• technical assistance; and
• other forms of material or scholarly support.

2.10 References

The reference list should contain all and only those sources cited in the manuscript.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that:

• references are complete and accurate;
• every in-text citation corresponds to a reference-list entry;
• every reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
• bibliographic information is sufficiently detailed for retrieval;
• DOI information is provided where available; and
• the selected referencing style is applied consistently.

IARP accepts recognized academic referencing systems, including APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and Vancouver, subject to the requirements of the relevant journal and article type.

3. Tables, Figures, and Illustrative Materials

Tables and figures should enhance the presentation and interpretation of scholarly findings rather than duplicate information already provided in the text.

Authors should observe the following principles:

• Tables and figures should be numbered consecutively according to their order of appearance.
• Each table and figure should have an informative title or caption.
• Every table and figure should be cited appropriately in the main text.
• Tables should preferably be supplied as editable text or spreadsheet-based tables, rather than embedded images.
• Figures should be of sufficient resolution and quality for scholarly publication.
• Where technically appropriate, image files should be supplied in TIFF, PNG, or JPEG format.
• Authors should ensure that figures, graphs, charts, and diagrams remain legible at publication size.
• Color should be used purposefully and consistently, particularly where it conveys substantive information.
• Authors should obtain permission for copyrighted figures, tables, photographs, or other third-party material where permission is required.

4. Language, Academic Style, and Presentation

IARP encourages manuscripts written in clear, precise, grammatically sound, and formal academic English.

Authors should:

• use concise and objective scholarly language;
• maintain consistency in terminology and nomenclature;
• avoid unnecessary verbosity;
• define specialized terminology where appropriate;
• introduce non-standard abbreviations at first use;
• avoid ambiguous or unsupported assertions;
• distinguish evidence from interpretation; and
• ensure that the manuscript has been carefully proofread before submission.

For journals requiring American English, authors should apply consistent American English spelling, punctuation, and usage throughout the manuscript.

Authors whose first language is not English are strongly encouraged to obtain appropriate language editing or professional proofreading before submission when necessary.

5. Supplementary Materials

Authors may submit supplementary materials that materially support the article but are not essential to the understanding of the main manuscript.

Such materials may include:

• datasets;
• methodological appendices;
• questionnaires or research instruments;
• supplementary tables and figures;
• multimedia materials;
• technical documentation;
• additional analytical results; and
• other relevant supporting files.

Supplementary materials should:

• be clearly identified;
• be appropriately cited within the manuscript;
• be submitted in an accessible and suitable file format; and
• comply with applicable ethical, legal, copyright, and data-protection requirements.

Where accepted, supplementary materials may be made available electronically in association with the published article.

6. Research Integrity, Ethical, and Legal Requirements

All submissions must comply with internationally recognized principles of research integrity, publication ethics, and responsible scholarly communication.

Authors must ensure that:

• the work is original and has not been published previously, except where appropriately disclosed;
• the manuscript is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
• plagiarism and inappropriate text reuse are avoided;
• data are not fabricated, falsified, or manipulated improperly;
• authorship is accurately represented;
• all relevant sources are appropriately acknowledged;
• conflicts of interest are disclosed;
• financial support is transparently reported; and
• necessary ethical approvals have been obtained and documented.

Where applicable, manuscripts should include appropriate statements concerning ethical approval, informed consent, participant confidentiality, animal welfare, data availability, funding, and conflicts of interest.

IARP may request additional documentation where necessary to verify compliance with ethical or editorial requirements.

7. Article Types

IARP journals may consider a range of scholarly contributions, subject to the scope and editorial policy of the individual journal.

Original Research Articles

Full-length articles presenting original empirical, analytical, theoretical, experimental, or methodological research.

Review Articles

Comprehensive and critical syntheses of established literature, identifying significant developments, debates, gaps, and potential directions for future research.

Short Communications / Brief Reports

Concise reports presenting focused, significant, preliminary, or novel findings that warrant timely scholarly communication.

Case Reports / Applied or Clinical Studies

Detailed analyses of individual or collective cases with substantive clinical, professional, institutional, social, or applied relevance, where appropriate to the journal's scope.

Conceptual, Theoretical, and Framework Articles

Scholarly contributions that develop, refine, or critically examine theories, concepts, models, or analytical frameworks.

Commentary, Opinion, and Perspective Articles

Scholarly discussions addressing emerging issues, contemporary developments, theoretical debates, or professional concerns within the relevant academic field.

Article structure, word limits, and documentation requirements may vary according to the article category and the specific journal.

8. Word Count

IARP does not generally impose an inflexible word limit at the initial submission stage. Manuscripts should nevertheless be appropriately focused, proportionate to their scholarly objectives, and sufficiently comprehensive to support rigorous evaluation.

As a general guideline, original research and review articles should ordinarily not exceed approximately 10,000 words, excluding the abstract, references, tables, figures, and appendices, unless a journal-specific policy provides otherwise.

Authors should avoid unnecessary length while ensuring that essential methodological, analytical, and evidentiary information is adequately presented.

9. Submission Requirements

Authors should submit manuscripts through the designated online manuscript submission system of the relevant IARP journal.

Where email submission is expressly permitted, the manuscript may be submitted to the appropriate editorial office at:

For email submissions, authors should provide the required information in a structured format comparable to the online submission process.

For double-blind peer review, authors should normally prepare the submission as two separate files:

• Title Page — containing the manuscript title, complete author information, affiliations, corresponding-author details, ORCID iDs, funding information, and other identifying information where applicable.
• Anonymous Manuscript — containing the complete scholarly manuscript, including the abstract, keywords, main text, references, tables, and figures, but excluding author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, corresponding-author details, and other information that could directly identify the authors.

Authors should also ensure that identifying information has been removed from document properties, file metadata, supplementary files, and acknowledgments, where necessary to preserve the integrity of the double-blind review process.

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the authors for correction or completion before they proceed to editorial assessment.

10. Editorial Assessment and Peer Review

Following submission, manuscripts may undergo an initial editorial screening to determine whether they are suitable for the journal in terms of scope, scholarly presentation, originality, ethical compliance, and basic submission requirements.

Manuscripts considered suitable for further evaluation may subsequently be sent for independent peer review in accordance with the journal's applicable review policy.

Editorial decisions may include acceptance, revision, or rejection, depending on the outcome of the editorial and peer-review process.

Authors should respond carefully and systematically to reviewer and editorial comments when a revision is requested.

11. Post-Acceptance Preparation and Production

Following acceptance, manuscripts may undergo editorial and production processing, which may include:

• language and copyediting;
• reference verification and normalization;
• formatting and journal-style conversion;
• figure and table preparation;
• metadata preparation;
• DOI and indexing metadata processing;
• typesetting and proof preparation; and
• final publication checks.

Authors may be requested to review the galley or page proofs and should return corrections within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

At the proof stage, authors should focus primarily on correcting typographical, factual, or production-related errors. Substantive alterations may require editorial approval.

12. Author Responsibility

Submission of a manuscript to an IARP journal signifies that the authors accept responsibility for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical presentation of the submitted work.

Authors are responsible for:

• obtaining necessary permissions for copyrighted material;
• ensuring the accuracy of references and citations;
• confirming appropriate authorship and contribution statements;
• disclosing relevant funding and conflicts of interest;
• ensuring that ethical requirements have been satisfied; and
• providing accurate contact and institutional information.

The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating communication with the editorial office and, where applicable, confirming that all co-authors have approved the submitted version.

13. Final Considerations

IARP seeks to balance editorial rigor with a practical and author-conscious submission experience. Authors are therefore not expected to undertake extensive journal-specific formatting before the completion of peer review, provided that the manuscript is professionally presented, academically coherent, and sufficiently clear for evaluation.

Nevertheless, authors are strongly encouraged to follow these guidelines wherever practicable. A well-structured manuscript facilitates editorial screening, peer review, scholarly communication, indexing, discoverability, and subsequent production.

Compliance with these recommendations does not guarantee acceptance or publication. All manuscripts remain subject to the applicable editorial assessment, peer-review procedures, ethical requirements, and final editorial decision of the relevant IARP journal.