Submissions

You are welcome to ERRCD Forum Journals.  Adhering to our guidelines will enhance a smooth peer-review and editorial process for your article. Please take note of all the instructions and follow them closely. Articles must be prepared using our Submission Template and Supplementary File Template.

Originality, Trustworthiness and Misconduct 
Submissions must be original and fall within the scope of the specific journal. It must include an assurance that the manuscript has not been published, submitted, or sent for consideration elsewhere. If required, proof of language editing, done by native/L1 language speakers or experts in English Language, should be submitted alongside the article as a supplementary file. Please be aware that only manuscripts exhibiting a similarity index of 10% or lower will be eligible for processing. Prior to proceeding, it is imperative to note that all submissions will undergo a screening process utilising the Turnitin plagiarism checker. However, the editor is rightfully obliged to suggest modifications and refuse any manuscripts with stated reasons without recourse to whether the manuscript is by invitation or a voluntary submission before publication.

ERRCD Forum condone zero tolerance for research misconduct such as plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. Practices such as fabrication of data, manipulation of data, images, visual objects, and other research resources are prohibited and considered forbidden in our Journals . Authors are expected to present an accurate account of the data collection and their respective analyses. The true reflection of the work done should be presented; anything other than that is considered unethical and would be rejected.  You will receive an acknowledgement of receipt of your submission immediately, and manuscripts outside our scope and formatting style will be returned.

In the case of allegations regarding research misconduct, the publisher, alongside the specific Journal editor, shall follow the Committee on Publication Ethics’s (COPE) Core Practice in dealing with such a situation.

Ethical Considerations

The issue of research ethics is critical and must be keenly followed to protect the researcher, the co-researchers, the participants, the respondents and every object and subject element involved in the study. In social sciences research, like other fields of study, adhering to ethical rules involving human beings, vulnerable populations, confidentiality, and anonymity should not be compromised. Where applicable, statements on the name of the ethics committee, the approval number, and consent to participate in the study obtained from participants or their legal guardians should be included in the study. ERRCD Forum adheres to Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research published by the British Educational Research Association (BERA), which may be perused and applied accordingly.

Formatting of Manuscripts  

The integrity of our review process is sacrosanct; therefore, concerted efforts should be made by all authors to remove all the indications of identity from the “manuscript” to ensure a blinded relationship between the author(s) and the reviewer(s). These steps will be hundred per cent (100%) considered before initiating the review process:

• Author(s) should prepare two different documents; the first document, named "main manuscript" must only contain the title of the manuscript, the abstract and the entire article. The second document, which must be named and uploaded as a "supplementary file" must contain the title, author(s) information, abstract and the email address of all the authors. 
• In the case of the author(s) citing their previous works, the name(s) must be replaced with “author and year” in the text and also replicated in the references session instead of the authors' name, article title, etc.
• By naming your documents, author(s) identification should also be removed from the properties of the files; instead, name your main article as "main manuscript", but it must be in our Submission Template and the information file as "supplementary file". 

Manuscripts must be prepared in Microsoft Word, using single-spaced (1.0 line spacing), justified size-10, and Book Antiqua font. Please see the Submission Template for comprehensive information. You are advised to employ italics rather than underlining. Please note that figures, tables and other graphics must be placed in the appropriate section within the text accordingly. The recommended length for manuscripts is between 2000 and 4000 words, including references, an abstract of 250 words or less, and any appendices.

Each heading and subheading must be numbered, e.g. 1., 1.1, 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, etc. In the case of multiple authors, the manuscript must indicate one author as the corresponding author in the supplementary file.  Before submission, you may check our published articles to ensure that your article is correctly formatted. Articles not formatted according to our format will be rejected. 

Types of Acceptable Articles

Authors submitting to the Interdisciplinary Journal of Critical Communications must clearly indicate the type of article (e.g., Short Communication, Commentary, Opinion Piece, Case Study, among others) during the submission process. This information must also be included in the anonymous manuscript file to ensure proper categorisation and to facilitate an efficient peer-review and editorial process. Submissions that do not comply with this requirement may be returned for technical revision before further consideration.

• Research Reports: Research reports are concise, evidence-informed documents that present findings, observations, evaluations, trends, or outcomes derived from projects, field activities, institutional processes, or community initiatives. While they do not necessarily adhere to the conventional format of research articles, they should encompass a clear purpose, pertinent evidence, a methodological process when applicable, key insights, and practical implications.
• Short Communications: Short communications are concise scholarly papers that present timely findings, emerging ideas, innovative practices, or focused discussions on contemporary issues. These articles are intended to promote the rapid dissemination of relevant knowledge and may report preliminary results, brief studies, policy observations, or urgent scholarly interventions.
• Commentaries: Commentaries are analytical and evidence-informed discussions addressing current debates, recent developments, published works, or pressing societal concerns. They may provide critique, contextual interpretation, professional reflection, or alternative perspectives designed to stimulate informed scholarly dialogue.
• Opinion Pieces: Opinion pieces are concise articles presenting the author's reasoned viewpoint on contemporary issues, institutional trends, policy matters, or emerging challenges. While argumentative in tone, they should remain scholarly, balanced, and supported by relevant evidence or professional experience.
• Conceptual Insights: Conceptual insight articles develop fresh perspectives, new interpretations, or novel ways of understanding an issue, process, or phenomenon. These papers may refine existing concepts, introduce emerging terminology, or propose new directions for scholarship and practice.
• Theoretical Reflections: Theoretical reflections critically engage with theories, models, or philosophical assumptions relevant to interdisciplinary inquiry. They may compare frameworks, challenge dominant paradigms, or apply theory to contemporary social, educational, political, cultural, or professional contexts.
• Case Studies: Case studies provide an in-depth examination of a specific event, programme, institution, policy initiative, organisation, or community experience. These articles emphasise lessons learned, transferable insights, practical implications, and contextual understanding of real-world situations.
• Community-Based Reports: Community-based reports document initiatives, interventions, partnerships, grassroots experiences, or locally grounded responses to contemporary challenges. These papers are particularly encouraged where community voices, participatory approaches, or socially responsive practices are central.
• Policy and Practice Notes: Policy and practice notes analyse current policy developments, professional innovations, governance reforms, or operational practices across various sectors. They should underscore implications for decision-makers, practitioners, institutions, or communities.
• Critical Essays: Critical essays are scholarly argumentative papers that interrogate contemporary issues, dominant assumptions, public narratives, or institutional practices. They should exhibit intellectual depth, analytical coherence, and interdisciplinary relevance.
• Book Reviews: Book reviews critically evaluate recently published books pertinent to the journal’s broad interdisciplinary mission. Reviews should assess the text’s contribution, originality, strengths, limitations, and relevance to contemporary scholarship or practice.
• Special Communications: Special communications may encompass invited responses, debate exchanges, editorial reflections, conference reflections, or rapid scholarly interventions on urgent matters of broad interest. Acceptance is contingent upon editorial discretion, among others.

Citation, Referencing and ORCID iD Requirement 

All sources used must be acknowledged. Authors must ensure that all in-text citations are done appropriately and with no omission in the reference section. All citations in the manuscripts must be referenced, while all references must have been cited. ERRCD Forum adopted the American Psychological Association (APA) 7th edition publication guidelines, which should be strictly adhered to.

All authors must provide an ORCID iD for all articles published. The Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID) is a free, 16-digit linkable identifier (iD) that allows researchers to be identified and distinguish identical authors from one another. For additional information, click here.

Data Availability Statement 

It is highly recommended that authors ensure the accessibility of their research data by either depositing it in a publicly accessible repository or providing it as supplementary material during the submission process. Authors are expected to disclose in their supplementary file if they have deposited their datasets into a public repository. If otherwise, authors should clearly outline the reason(s) why data cannot be released. However, as a precautionary measure, authors are advised to remove any information that might reveal their identity from the anonymised file when making a data availability statement. For more details and examples of applicable statements, please see our Data Availability Policy. 

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

It is the author’s responsibility to disclose any conflicting, competing and financial interest that may influence the result, the production, and construe or result in liability. All official sources of financial support should be disclosed. Therefore, the author must notify the editor-in-chief should there be any conflicts of interest.

Permissions and Acknowledgement

It is the author’s responsibility to obtain written permission for any already published tables, figures, text passages, and illustrations. The author should create a separate section before references for acknowledgements of people, funding organisations, grants, etc.  This section should be titled “acknowledgements” just like other sub-headings, and the author(s) must obtain permission from the acknowledged person(s) and/or organisations.

Publication Process

Authors are requested to register and submit their manuscripts using our submission link.

The submission and the review gateway are designed to guide authors and reviewers step by step throughout the process. If you are unable to provide an electronic version, please contact the Editor-in-Chief.  The following is the publication process:

Step 1: The author registers and submits the complete manuscript in a Word document following a double-blind peer-review policy and formatting prescription of the Journal.

Step 2: The editor-in-chief checks the submitted manuscripts (subject to rejection if not within the Journal's scope and unable to fulfil the standard research criteria).

Step 3: The articles are subjected to a plagiarism test (above ten per cent similarity result will be rejected and sent back to the author(s)).

Step 4: The article will be assigned to a suitable editorial team member (content verification will be ascertained and may be rejected if found unsuitable).

Step 5: Two expert double-blind peer reviewers are selected from different institutions to review the manuscript. After that, the assigned editor evaluates the review results. The likely recommendations are:

1. Accept in its condition,
2. Minor revision is required,
3. Major revision required,
4. Resubmit for another review process,
5. Reject and resubmit elsewhere.

Step 6: In the case of 1, manuscripts are processed for publication. In the case of 2 and 3, the author(s) have to submit the revised manuscript through the revision menu, where manuscripts are checked by the assigned editor and reviewers. At this stage, the manuscript may be rejected if it does not satisfy the reviewers' queries. In the case of 4, a new review process is initiated, and in the case of 5, the final decision is communicated to the authors.

Step 7: The accepted manuscripts will be formatted and sent back to the author(s) for approval.

Step 8: A copy-edited version of the manuscript is uploaded and shared with the author(s) for final approval before final publication.

Peer Review Process

ERRCD Forum follow a double-blind peer-review policy, meaning that the identities of both the author(s) and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. Articles are subjected to a rigorous peer-review process after the assigned editor assesses their quality and relevance to the journal. At this stage, the editor may either reject or accept the article. If accepted, the article will be sent to two carefully selected peer reviewers with expertise in the subject area. The reviewers are expected to provide reports on the article, which the assigned editor will use to make recommendations.

If revisions are required, authors will be notified and informed accordingly. They will be requested to resubmit the revised version of the article within a specified timeframe. If the revision is minor, the editor will recommend it appropriately. In the case of a major revision, the article will be reevaluated by the same reviewers, and their recommendations will inform the final decision. The assigned editor manages the review process and subsequently recommends a decision to the Editor-in-Chief. After reviewing this recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief makes and communicates the final decision. This collaborative approach upholds our high-quality and rigorous review standards.

Finally, an accepted article will be sent for copy-editing. The copy-edited version will be shared with the corresponding author using the journal's online system for possible proofreading, correction of technical issues, and return of the copy to the editor.

Turn-Around Time

Depending on the reviewers' availability and promptness, our review process takes approximately 2 to 3 months. Authors may not need to follow up if the submission is less than two months.

Review Guidelines

ERRCD Forum values the role of reviewers in the double-blind peer review process for publishing quality works; therefore, the reviewers are expected to accept only articles in which they have sufficient expertise. All the reviewers are requested to ensure the following:

1. The manuscript is within my area of expertise.
2. I can dedicate the appropriate time to conduct a critical review of the manuscript.
3. All the reviewers should declare their conflicts of interest, if any, and can decline the review if conflicts exist.
4. ERRCD Forum follows a blind peer-review process, so the manuscript and the review process should remain confidential during and after the review process.
5. Review of a manuscript should be fair, just, critical, and honest and should not be influenced by the origin or the geographical location of the manuscript, the religious, political, cultural viewpoint, gender, race, ethnicity, or citizenry of the author.
6. Reviewers should only accept manuscript(s) that they are confident of and willing to dedicate appropriate time to review. However, your prompt submission of the review is our prayer.

Article Processing Charges

The Journal is committed to accessible, inclusive, and ethically grounded scholarly publishing while maintaining professional editorial and publication standards. This journal currently operates as a fully free-to-publish journal and does not charge for publication. There are no hidden charges, administrative fees, submission fees, review fees, publication surcharges, or any other mandatory costs whatsoever. Any future changes to this policy would be clearly communicated through the journal’s official website in advance.

Publication Frequency

The Journal publishes one issue per year on a continuous publication basis. Articles are published online individually as soon as they have successfully completed peer review, production, and finalisation. This model ensures the timely dissemination of accepted research without unnecessary delay.