• Home
• Log In
• Register
• Archives
• Search
• EDITORS

• » Online Submissions
• » Author Guidelines
• » Copyright Notice
• » Privacy Statement

Online Submissions

Already have a Username/Password for The African Review of Physics?
Go to Login

Need a Username/Password?
Go to Registration

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions.

Author Guidelines

MANUSCRIPT PREPARATION

Please take note that as from 1 January 2015 The African Review of Physics will no longer support TeX files.

Please read the following for the preparation of your manuscript:

Acceptable file formats

Only Microsoft Word will be accepted.Microsoft equation, included with your version of Word, should be used for equations. The ‘Insert Table’ function should be used for your tables. Footnotes should be inserted with the ‘Insert Footnote’ command.

Useful information

For peer reviewing purposes the paper should be prepared using double line spacing. The font to be used is Times New Roman, font size 12. 

Authors are requested to keep in mind that the final version will appear in a two column format, therefore it must be possible for the journal to make the necessary adjustments, i.e., split lengthy equations, adjust wide tables, etc.

Authors are informed that once their paper has been accepted for publication, no proofs will be provided, and no further changes can be made.

The manuscript should be arranged as follows

Title

Author(s)

Affiliation(s)

Email address of corresponding author 

Abstract

Body of Text

Acknowledgements

Appendices

References

Tables and Figures should be embedded in the text where they have been cited. They should be numbered consecutively, e.g., 1, 2, 3 etc. Captions for Tables and Figures are required.

References are to be numbered consecutively in order of appearance, e.g. [1], [2], [3] etc. For an example of how the list of References is to be prepared, see: http://www.aphysrev.org

Equations should be numbered on the right-hand side consecutively as (1), (2), (3) etc. The numbering should not include the section number.

Equations in the Appendices can be numbered consecutively as (A1), (A2), (A3) etc.

All authors submitting manuscripts for publication are expected to abide by the guidelines in this document. They are obliged to present an accurate account of the methods used, the results obtained, and the relevant scientific literature; and to provide an objective discussion of the significance of the research. Authors submitting papers to the African Review of Physics should conform to the following guidelines prepared by the editors.

Manuscript: Manuscripts should be prepared to maximize clarity and accuracy of communication. Research papers are the principal means by which ideas, data, and interpretations are conveyed to the scientific community. Papers that are poorly written take valuable time on the part of the reader to understand and may be subject to misinterpretation. Papers that are wordy also waste valuable resources. Manuscripts should be well organized, concise, and avoid ambiguity. If necessary, authors should seek the assistance of someone with experience in technical writing in the language being used for the manuscript. However, the authors of the manuscript retain responsibility for the accuracy of the final manuscript

Manuscript Style: Authors should follow the AIP Style Manual, fourth edition (1997), prepared by the American Institute of Physics, New York.

Multi-authored papers: Authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution. It is properly assumed that all authors have had a significant role in the creation of a manuscript that bears their names. Therefore, the list of authors on an article serves multiple purposes; it indicates who is responsible for the work and to whom questions regarding the work should be addressed. Moreover, the credit implied by authorship is often used as a measure of scientists' productivity in evaluating them for employment, promotions, grants, and prizes. Authorship must be reserved for individuals who have met each of the following conditions: (a) made a significant contribution to the conception and design or the analysis and interpretation of data, (b) participated in drafting the article or reviewing and revising it for intellectual content, and (c) approved the final version of the manuscript. (Deceased persons deemed appropriate as authors should be so included with a footnote reporting their death.) In multi-authored papers, the significance of the order in which authors are listed varies widely according to common practice in the field or to the policy established by a journal and its publisher. It is the policy of the African Review of Physics that names should be written in alphabetical order and irrespective of formal titles. Once the list and order of authors has been established, the list and order of authors should not be altered without permission of all living authors. The role of each author in the work reported may be indicated in a footnote. Any part of an article essential to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least one author.

Corresponding Author: In the case of papers with multiple authors, a "corresponding" author must be designated as having responsibility for overseeing the publication process ensuring the integrity of the final document. The corresponding author accepts the responsibility for: (a) including as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate; (b) obtaining from all co-authors their assent to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the manuscript; (c) determining that permission has been obtained from each individual acknowledged in the manuscript; and (d) keeping all coauthors apprised of the current status of a manuscript submitted for publication, including furnishing all co-authors with copies of the reviewers' comments and a copy of the published version, as appropriate.

Co-authors: Co-authors have responsibility for work submitted under their names. They should remain knowledgeable in so far as possible regarding the status of the manuscript, including the nature of any revisions. If a manuscript is revised and resubmitted, coauthors should be asked to reaffirm their assent to be listed as co-authors and to approve the revised version. Co-authors have the right to withdraw their names from a manuscript at any time before acceptance of the manuscript by the editor. However, an author's name should not be removed from a manuscript without his or her permission or without approval of the editor in cases involving possible misconduct. Once a manuscript has been accepted for publication, no change in authorship should occur without permission of the editor.

Honorary Authorship: It is inconsistent with the definition of authorship. An honorary author is any individual listed as an author who has not made a substantive intellectual contribution to the work. Among those who would be considered honorary authors are those whose participation was limited solely to the acquisition of funding for the research; those who are a chair or director of department, division, or research group and had no significant role in the planning, conduct, and review of the research; or those who merely supervised the collection of data. Honorary authorship is a misrepresentation, implying an intellectual contribution that was not made. It also distorts the publication record, making it a less reliable measure of productivity. Moreover, should honorary authors be unable to adequately discuss the work, this will reflect poorly on them and their co-authors. Finally, honorary authors risk associating themselves with the work that may later be the subject of a misconduct investigation. If so, they will be expected to share in the responsibility for the work.

Acknowledgements: This provides an opportunity to note assistance that does not warrant authorship but does merit recognition. Although only a limited number of people will qualify as authors of a manuscript, there are many other types of contributions that can or even should be acknowledged in other ways. A footnote or the "Acknowledgements" section of a paper should be used to indicate intellectual, technical, or other contributions that do not merit authorship but are nonetheless noteworthy. Acknowledgement of ideas or of comments provided about a draft of a manuscript is an appropriate indication of assistance provided and also may facilitate such interactions in the future. Other types of acknowledgements that may be appropriate are those for the donation of a critical reagent or for technical support. However, because acknowledgements of intellectual contributions may be interpreted by readers as an endorsement of the conclusions of the paper, authors should offer such individuals the opportunity to decline the acknowledgement. Individuals should be informed before the publication of any such acknowledgements and thereby given the opportunity to decline the offer.

Financial Contributions: Financial contributions to the work being reported should be clearly acknowledged, as should any potential conflict of interest. Acknowledgement of financial support is expected by sponsors and may assist the funding agency in determining the impact of their contribution. All sources of financial support for the work described should be acknowledged in a footnote or in an "Acknowledgements" section of a manuscript. Financial support from commercial sponsors may be a potential conflict of interest, which should be disclosed so that editors, reviewers, and readers can consider this in evaluating the objectivity of the report.

Conflict of Interest: Authors should disclose in a cover letter sent to the editor any associations that represent a potential conflict of interest. These include a current or pending relationship as a consultant for the company supporting the research or manufacturing products being tested, a financial or managerial interest in such a company, or intellectual property rights that might be affected by publication of the results of the research reported in a manuscript. Upon receipt of this information, an editor may require that a footnote disclosing the potential conflict be added to the manuscript. Authors should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would restrict the dissemination of their findings. More fundamentally, researchers should seek advice from their institutions before entering into agreements that might prevent or unduly delay publication of their research results. However, it is not acceptable for an academic scientist to permit an outside organization to hold veto power over publication. Should any such restrictions exist, however, they should be disclosed to the editor. Upon receipt of this information, an editor may choose to return the manuscript.

Details of Methods and Material: Methods and materials should be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and replication. In science it is essential that other researchers be able to evaluate and, if they wish, to replicate published observations. This enables researchers to build on the work of each other, thus permitting the efficient use of resources. A research article should contain sufficient detail and reference to public sources of information in a format appropriate to ARP's style and policy to allow a knowledgeable scientist to evaluate and replicate the work reported. The source of all materials and significant items of equipment should be clearly indicated, including those materials that are not commercially available. Any known unusual hazards inherent in the chemicals, equipment, or procedures used in an investigation should be clearly identified in the manuscript reporting the work.

Errors: Authors have an obligation to correct errors promptly. Once an article has been published, it remains forever within the scientific literature. Thus, care should be taken to determine that every aspect of a manuscript is correct. Occasionally, errors are not discovered until after a manuscript has been submitted or even after it has been published. Every effort should be made to correct such errors as quickly as possible. It is far preferable to do so before an article is published since the subsequent publication of corrections - while serving a useful purpose when required - can never completely eliminate the possibility that individuals will read the original article and assume it to be accurate, having not read the correction. Authors must strive to ensure that every aspect of a manuscript is correct. This responsibility does not end when a manuscript has been submitted for publication. Should a significant error be discovered after the article has been submitted, is in press, or has been published, the authors must immediately contact the editor and establish how the error should best be corrected. If there is a disagreement among the authors about such matters, the editor of the journal to which the manuscript was submitted must determine the proper course of action.

Peer Review: Peer review of manuscripts is designed to provide both the author and the reader with an objective evaluation of a proposed research communication. It often results in modification of the original manuscript, ranging from c1arification of language or figures to additional experiments or the reinterpretation of results. Thus, papers that have gone through peer review and have been accepted for publication have a value within the scientific community beyond that of other forms of communication.

Post-review Modifications: All components of a research artic1e should be subject to peer review. Designation as a peer-reviewed article implies that each substantive component of the published article has received editorial approval. This includes material that has been modified or added after the initial review process, as well as the deletion of material. Thus, although it may be necessary to alter a manuscript after it has been submitted, this should be done only with the consent of the editor. If a manuscript has been reviewed, returned to the authors, and is being sent back in a revised form, all substantive changes in any aspect of that manuscript should be explicitly described in an accompanying note to the editor. This applies to the list and order of authors, as well as to the text, data, figures, tables, and references. All substantive changes made in proofs sent to the authors after a manuscript has been accepted for publication also must be c1early identified and explained in a note to the editor. Plagiarism is not acceptable. Scientific publication is an important part of the process by which credit and priority are established for experimental work and research ideas. Duplicating without citation text previously published by others or expropriating without attribution the experimental findings, methods, or ideas of others is plagiarism and is unethical. Plagiarism undermines the system through which authors receive credit for their work, and in doing so may inhibit authors from sharing their data and ideas in a timely fashion, activities essential to the progress of science. In addition to denying scholarly credit, plagiarism also has potentially important legal implications for commercial development and patenting. It is the responsibility of the authors to identify the source of all ideas, results, or methods quoted or offered, except those that are accepted as common knowledge. In most instances, the appropriate source will be a peer reviewed article rather than a review article, chapter, or book. When a secondary source is used to supplement a primary source, it should be identified as such (e.g., "see also review by Jones, 1992"). Abstracts, presentations at meetings or seminars, and material placed on a Web site also should be cited appropriately. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, should not be used or reported in the author's work without explicit permission from the source of the information (who should then be cited as providing a personal communication).

Data Fabrication and Falsification: It is essential that researchers and others be able to trust the validity of published data. That trust permits researchers to build on prior observations and thus facilitates the progress of science. It also allows individuals to form opinions and make policies based on those observations. Data that have been fabricated or falsified contaminate the scientific literature, greatly diminishing the value of this resource for researchers and others in the community. Moreover, such fraudulent actions undermine society's trust in the scientific enterprise. No data may be communicated in an abstract, oral presentation, or publication that have not actually been collected or observed (fabrication), nor may data be altered in any way (falsification) other than by mathematical transformations that are commonly accepted or clearly explained in the manuscript. This includes numerical data, as well as visual images. Data that clearly deviate from all others of the same type as demonstrated by an appropriate statistical test or some other generally accepted criterion may, however, be eliminated from the data set. It may be appropriate to indicate such deletions within the manuscript.

Misinterpretation of Data: All data should be presented so as to minimize the possibility of misinterpretation. The prohibition against misrepresenting observations extends beyond fabrication and falsification. Data also must be presented in such a form that they will not be readily subject to misinterpretation. Authors are obligated to present their data in a form that minimizes the chance that readers will be misled about what was actually observed. This is particularly important when data transformations are employed or when graphical illustrations include axes that do not begin at a standard origin (usually "0,0"). All statistical tests employed to analyze data must be used knowledgeably, ensuring that the requirements of the tests are satisfied by the data set to which they are applied. Authors not well versed in the statistical procedures appropriate to their research are expected to have consulted an individual with the necessary expertise.

Improper Duplication: Authors should not engage in fragmented or duplicate publication. Research reports should be neither duplicated nor unduly fragmented. Duplicate publication may give the misleading impression that the previously reported research has been replicated. It is improper for authors to submit a manuscript describing essentially the same research simultaneously to more than one peer-reviewed research journal. When submitting a manuscript for publication, authors should inform the editor of any related manuscripts under editorial consideration or in press, and describe the relationships of such manuscripts to the one submitted. A copy of these manuscripts should also be supplied to the editor. Authors contemplating the preparation of two related manuscripts should consider whether a single paper would be more cohesive and informative than two papers without being excessively long. In general, data should never be published in more than one research article. In this context, "data" refers to the full range of experimental observations, from a single value to an entire figure or table. Authors may occasionally wish to submit a full-length research article that expands on a previously published brief preliminary account (sometimes termed a "communication" or "letter") of the same work. When the full-length research article is submitted, the editor should be apprised of the earlier publication, and the preliminary account must be cited as such in the manuscript. It may sometimes be useful to include in a manuscript previously published data for the purpose of comparison. Also, in some cases it is helpful to have previously published data included in a new manuscript as part of a data set that is gradually developing in the course of a longitudinal study. In such cases, the duplicated data must clearly be identified as such and citations to the previously published work must appear in the new manuscript.

Pre-publication Dissemination: Informal communication of preliminary results and ideas by meetings and abstracts prior to its peer reviewed publication has always been accepted and, indeed, encouraged as being in the best interest of the scientific community. It not only provides a prompt exchange of information but also often generates feedback to the authors, thereby improving the final, formal publication in peer reviewed form. In this context, informal communication includes presenting material at scientific meetings, posting material for a limited period of time on a Web site, and exchanging prepublication drafts of manuscripts. When distributing information in an informal manner, whether by print or electronic means, it is advisable for authors to indicate clearly both its status with regard to publication and the date on which it was prepared and/or posted. Moreover, authors should be mindful of the fact that once a manuscript has been published, the copyright for all text, tables, and figures generally reverts to the publisher. It is the policy of the ARP for such informal presentation of preliminary research results, including specific figures, does not in and of itself preclude publication as a peer-reviewed research article. If a manuscript includes, in whole or in part, material previously presented in some other context, whether via print or electronic distribution or in a scientific meeting, the authors should acknowledge such presentation in a format appropriate to ARP.

Abusive Language and Personal Attacks: Authors should not make personal attacks on other researchers. Within the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections of a research artic1e, authors relate their findings to those already in the scientific literature. This process may sometimes justify criticism, even severe criticism, of the work of another scientist. However, it is essential to the collegial nature of science that such criticism be made in a civil manner and should never involve personal attacks. Authors should not discuss with any member of the board of editors/reviewers any aspect of a manuscript under evaluation. In order to maximize the unbiased nature of the review, the evaluation process should proceed without any interaction between authors and reviewer except though the editor. Communications between authors and one or more member of the board/reviewers should be made only through the editor or a designated editorial assistant. Authors should not discuss their manuscript with a reviewer while it is under review. They should continue to refrain from discussing the review with each other after a review is complete. Under no circumstances should an author allow an opinion rendered by a board member to influence the author's future actions regarding that board member except that an author might choose to request that a given member not be asked to evaluate the author's future manuscripts.

Bibliography: Accounts of a researcher's publication record should be accurate. The record of publication that occurs in the bibliography for a paper, on a résumé or curriculum vitae, or as part of an application for funding, often serves as an important measure of the quality and quantity of an individual's scientific accomplishments. Inaccuracies can lead to the assignment of inappropriate credit. They also can waste the time of individuals seeking the cited article. When referring to one's publications or manuscripts, accurate references to the published article should be provided, or depending on the circumstances, it should be labeled as "submitted" or "in press". A manuscript should not be designated as "submitted" until it has been mailed or delivered to an editor for possible publication. Moreover, "In press" (or "accepted") implies that a formal communication has been received indicating that the manuscript has been accepted and no further changes will be required. "Published" means that the artic1e is now available in an archival form. (Adapted from the guidelines approved and published by the Society of Neuroscience)

 

Submission Preparation Checklist

As 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.

1. 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).
2. The submission file is in Microsoft Word, RTF or PDF document file format.
3. When available, the URLs to access references online are provided, including those for open access versions of the reference. The URLs are ready to click (e.g., http://pkp.sfu.ca).
4. 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.
5. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines, which is found in About the Journal.
6. If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review) have been followed.

Copyright Notice

The copyright for articles in this journal are retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. By virtue of their appearance in this open access journal, articles are free to use with proper attribution in educational and other non-commercial settings.

Privacy Statement

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.