Submissions

Login or Register to make a submission.

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- There are no fees for publishing and it is an open-access journal.
  • 2- The author is committed to the journal’s Ethical Commitment (See the section Ethical Commitment).
  • 3- 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).
  • 4- Authors have significantly contributed to the research that originated the submission.
  • 5- If submitting to a peer-reviewed section of the journal, the instructions in Ensuring a Blind Review have been followed.
  • 6- Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  • 7- The submission presents a list of references, information about financial support, and where available, URLs for the references have been provided.
  • 8- The submission file is in Microsoft Word or RTF format.
  • 9- 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.
  • 10- The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines.

Author Guidelines

Manuscripts – submissions to the dossiers and the open topic section – undergo the same publishing process. Once submitted via our online system, the Editors-in-Chief, and the Editorial Committee immediately assess them. They are judged by their conformity to the journal’s mission, the extent to which they meet the standards established by the Editorial Committee and their originality. The manuscripts may be refused at this stage of the process.

If the manuscript meets all of the requirements above, it proceeds to the second stage of the process, a double-blinded system with two or more referees who decide whether the paper should be accepted or not, as well as suggest revisions. In this case, the authors should respond to the referees’ suggestions, who then re-evaluate the manuscript. The Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Committee then make the final decision. Since the journal cannot publish all of the manuscripts it receives, priority will be given to innovative, superior analytical quality and greater refinement in their research into the historiography of science. The final decision will be reported to the author no later than three months from the date the article was received.

Book reviews are also submitted through our online system. They are subjected to the assessment of the Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Committee. They also may be accepted or refused at the first stage and receive suggestions for revisions. In certain circumstances, they will be subject to a double-blind review.

One of the requirements of Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science is that the manuscripts should be submitted by authors who have a Ph.D., except for book reviews, which Ph.D. candidates can submit. The journal limits the number of publications by professors from the same university.

All manuscripts should be sent through the online submission system.

There is no fee for article submission and article processing.

In addition to English articles, Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science accepts articles in Portuguese, Spanish, and French for evaluation, but after approval for publication, the author should send the final version in English. If the author is not a native English speaker, the English version should be accompanied by a revision certificate provided by a translation service.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

All contributions should follow The Chicago Manual of Style (16th edition) using the author-date system.

“In this system, sources are briefly cited in the text, (…) in parentheses, by author’s last name and date of publication. The short citations are amplified in a list of references, where full bibliographic information is provided.” The Chicago Manual of Style

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Examples of reference:

Books

Shapin, Steven. 1998. The scientific revolution. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

In-text citations:

(Shapin 1998)

(Shapin 1998, 56-58)

Kuhn, Thomas. 2000. The road since structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

In-text citations:

(Kuhn 2000)

(Kuhn 2000, 12-13)

Daston, Lorraine and Peter Galison. 2007. Objectivity. Cambridge: Zone Books.

In-text citations:

(Daston and Galison 2007)

(Daston and Galison 2007, 54)

Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave, eds. 1970. Criticism and the growth of the knowledge. London: Cambridge University.

In-text citations:

(Lakatos and Musgrave 1970)

Chapter in an Edited Book:

Feyerabend, Paul. 1970. Consolation for the specialist. In Criticism and the growth of the knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave, 197-230. London: Cambridge University.

In-text citations:

(Feyerabend 1970)

(Feyerabend 1970, 207)

Journal article:

Shapin, Steven. 1988. Understanding the Merton’s thesis. Isis 79 (4): 594-605.

In-text citations:

(Shapin 1988)

(Shapin 1988, 595)

Internet publications:

Available in: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/ Consulted February 14, 2016.

Articles

Open Topic Articles or Dossier (Special Issue) Articles

Carefully read the instructions below:

1. Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science only publishes original articles. The expectation is to receive articles that do not have substantial similarity to articles or chapters of books already published by the author and have not been subject to any other publishing or editorial process. Once published in Transversal: International Journal for the Historiography of Science, the text can be published elsewhere with our authorization as long as the initial publication is noted.

2. The dossiers will be based on the contributions of distinguished scholars, but, as with open topic manuscripts, each original copy submitted will be subject to a double-blind review following the quality standards of international publications.

3. The Editors-in-Chief and the Editorial Committee will decide on the appropriateness of each open topic manuscript submitted and whether or not it will be subject to review. It is a requirement that every author or co-author has a Ph.D. degree. The original manuscript should not display the author’s name or the institution of origin, nor should there be any personal acknowledgments or self-references. If the submitted manuscript is accepted, the author will be asked to include the information mentioned above.

4. The articles should be no more than 10.000 words, including notes, keys, pictures, tables, illustrations, and bibliographic references. Use a word count for the whole article and consider that each image, table, or diagram will correspond to 300 words.

5. It is also required that each article has a title, an abstract, and five keywords. The abstract should be a maximum of 150 words.

6. Numbers from one to ten should be written as word, as well as round tens and hundreds (twenty, three hundred), but we recommend the use of figures for ages (50 years) and time (3 months, 7 minutes, 80 years).

7. Extended quotes (more than five lines) must be separated as one independent paragraph, indented on the left. No quotation marks should be used. Short quoted texts (up to five lines) should be inserted in the text between quotation marks.

8. Full references should be listed in alphabetical order at the end of the article.

9. Op. Cit., Ibid, Idem are not used. Long explanatory notes should be avoided. Whenever possible, limit footnotes to approximately one per paragraph. The primary sources or data (letters, rules, etc., archival items) should remain in footnotes, and they are not expected to be included in the final list of references.

10. Images: charts, tables, figures, illustrations, graphs, and drawings must be submitted in separate files from the text. Digital images should have high resolution (not interpolated), JPEG format, color RGB. Charts or tables must be in Word, and the graphs or spreadsheets in Excel. They should include titles and sources. All images must be numbered and have a key with a source citation. The author must present the rights for the use of each image or state that the image is in the public domain. The original color of the images will be preserved in the online version, but they will be in black and white in the printed version. The Editorial Committee will analyze special cases. Each image will correspond to 300 words concerning the final word count of the article (and will be considered part of the limit of ten thousand words).

Book Reviews

Book reviews are expected to consider books in the historiography of science first and foremost.

1. The book reviews should be between 2.000 and 3.500 words. Books should have been published in the same year as the submission or the year immediately before that.

2. The authors are required to address the following issues: What are the main arguments and aims of the author? Does the book develop the arguments well enough to reach its aims? Where does the work stand in the contemporary debates on the theme? Is the book supported by good documental work, and is it pertinent to the theme? What is the historiographical or philosophical meaning of the book? Is the writing clear and correct?

3. It is recommended that the reviewers do not summarize chapter per chapter of the work in question but discuss its general aspects.

4. Quotations from work being reviewed should include the page number. For example, “Not only this notion of revolution but also the beginnings of an idea of revolution in science date from the eighteenth-century writings of French Enlightenment philosophes who like to portray themselves, and their disciplines, as radical subverters of ancient régime culture” (Shapin 1998, 3).

5. Book reviews should not have footnotes.

6. Book review authors should be at least Ph.D. candidates. The editors can analyze exceptions.

Copyright Notice

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Privacy Statement

The names and addresses informed in this journal will be used exclusively for the editorial services provided by this publication and will not be made available for other purposes or third parties.