Author Guidelines
ASCILITE Wavelength Podcast Journal publishes scholarly articles developed around recorded conversations. Contributions follow a proposal, commissioning and open peer-review process.
1. Submit a proposal
Send a brief proposal outlining the topic, its relevance to the journal, the intended scholarly contribution, proposed speakers and authors, and an indicative completion date. The Editor-in-Chief assesses the proposal and may commission the contribution, request changes or decline it. Commissioning invites authors to develop the podcast and article; it does not guarantee publication.
2. Produce the podcast and article
Once commissioned, prepare the recording and accompanying article using the journal’s template. The article should develop a scholarly argument through relevant literature, selected interview quotations and interpretation. Typically active intellectual contributions from the podcast would constitute a core contribution to the manuscript; however, all authors must have made a written contribution in the final manuscript to be eligible. Timestamps are optional.
3. Submit the completed contribution
Submit the podcast, accompanying article and checked transcript, together with author details, contributor roles and relevant declarations. Recommend four potential suitable reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors, speakers or contribution. Provide each person’s name, affiliation, email address and relevant expertise. Avoid recommending close collaborators, colleagues at the same institution, supervisors or students, or anyone with a personal or financial relationship that could compromise independent review. The Editor-in-Chief selects reviewers and may invite people beyond those recommended.
4. Open peer review
The Editor-in-Chief oversees open peer review of the podcast and article. Authors and reviewers know each other’s identities throughout the review process. Reviewers assess the scholarly contribution, engagement with evidence, interpretation of the conversation and implications for practice or research. Reviewers agree to this open process when accepting an invitation. The names of reviewers who complete reviews are credited on the final accepted work. Reviewer credit acknowledges their contribution to the review process and does not imply endorsement of every statement or conclusion.
5. Revise and respond
The Editor-in-Chief communicates the decision and reviewer feedback. Where revisions are requested, authors submit revised materials and a response explaining how each point has been addressed. Revisions may involve the article, podcast or both. Revised contributions may return to reviewers or subject to additional review rounds before the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision.
6. Acceptance and publication
Following acceptance, authors check the article proof, final audio, contributor details and reviewer credits. The published article receives a DOI and the associated podcast will be published across major platforms.
