Author Guidelines
Original Research Article full structure
Title: "The article title must be concise, clear, and reflect the main focus of the research, with a maximum of 20 words. Avoid the use of uncommon abbreviations. The title should present the core idea first, followed by contextual details that specify the scope or issue being studied."
Abstract:
The abstract, written in English and not exceeding 200 words, must be presented in past tense. It should concisely convey the purpose of the study, the research methods employed, key findings, and the significance or impact of the results. The abstract should be unstructured and contain the following essential components:
Purpose: Clearly state the primary goal or research objective.
Methods: Briefly describe the research design and procedures used without elaborating in detail.
Findings: Present the major results or outcomes of the study.
Implications: Highlight the potential impact, relevance, or recommendations derived from the findings.
Originality: Indicate the novelty or unique contribution of the research in addressing a knowledge gap or real-world issue.
Avoid citing references or using excessive abbreviations within the abstract. Focus on clarity, precision, and relevance to both academic and practical audiences.
Introduction: The introduction should present a well-structured argument highlighting both the social and scientific significance of the study, along with a clear statement of its aim and objectives.
- The opening section of the introduction must establish a convincing rationale for the relevance and importance of the study. This argument should be logically developed and supported by relevant evidence from existing literature.
- The next section should emphasize the originality of the research. It should provide a concise overview of current knowledge related to the research question or topic and clearly identify the gap that this study seeks to address. This argument must also be substantiated by references to scholarly literature.
- In some types of research, it is also essential to explain the theoretical foundation that informs the study, and how the selected theories are interconnected within a conceptual framework. The theoretical references used to build this framework should be appropriately cited from academic sources.
- The introduction should conclude with a clear and concise summary of the study’s aim and specific objectives.
Research methods and design: This must address the following:
- Study Design: Provide a clear description of the type of research design employed in the study (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods).
- Setting: Briefly describe the context in which the study was conducted. This may include details about the community from which participants were recruited, or the specific characteristics of the institutional, educational, or health service environment.
- Study Population and Sampling Strategy: Detail the characteristics of the study population, including criteria for inclusion and exclusion. Indicate the planned sample size along with a justification or calculation method used to determine it. Explain the sampling approach and provide a practical account of how participants were selected and recruited.
- Intervention (if applicable): If the study involved an intervention, provide a clear explanation of its components. Include what was administered to the intervention group and what procedures, if any, were applied to the comparison or control group.
- Data Collection: Describe the instruments or tools used for data collection, including information on their validity and reliability. Outline how data were gathered in practice and highlight any notable challenges encountered during data collection, such as language or cultural barriers.
- Data Analysis: Explain the steps taken in managing the data, including how it was recorded, verified, and cleaned. Describe the analytical approach, such as statistical methods for quantitative studies or coding and thematic analysis for qualitative research.
- Ethical Considerations: Mention that ethical approval was secured from an appropriate ethics review board, stating the name of the institution and the approval or permit number. Ethical compliance must be clearly documented.
Results and Discussion
Results
The research findings must be presented clearly and supported by adequate data. These results should directly address the research questions or hypotheses that were outlined in the introduction.
Discussion
The discussion section should include the following key components:
Key Findings: Provide a concise summary of the most important results, avoiding repetition of detailed data already presented in the results section.
Interpretation of Findings: Discuss how your findings relate to existing literature, theories, practices, or policies. Highlight agreements, contradictions, or contributions to current knowledge.
Strengths and Limitations: Acknowledge the methodological strengths of your study and also be transparent about its limitations. Discuss how these factors may influence the interpretation and generalizability of the results.
Implications and Recommendations: Present the implications of your findings for future research, policy development, or practical application. Ensure that all recommendations are logically derived from the study's results.
Conclusion
The conclusion must directly respond to the research objectives and highlight the main discoveries of the study. It should not merely restate the results, discussion, or abstract. Instead, it should provide a concise synthesis of the study’s contributions and significance. Additionally, propose directions for future research and, if applicable, mention any ongoing studies related to the topic.
References: The literature listed in the References contains only the sources referenced or included in the article. We recommend preparing the references with a bibliography software package, such as Mendeley, EndNote, Reference Manager or Zotero to avoid typing mistakes and duplicated references. Referral sources should provide 80% of journal articles, proceedings, or research results from the last five years. Writing techniques bibliography, using the system cites APA (American Psychological Association) Style and the 6th edition.
Decision type: Reject, Resubmit for review, Revision, Accepted
1. Decline
If, upon initial editorial assessment, the manuscript is found to be unsuitable for Evangelikal, it will be rejected. However, authors may choose to revise and submit it as a new manuscript in the future.
If the paper has undergone peer review and is determined to be fundamentally unsuitable for publication, the decision will be final, and resubmission will not be considered.
2. Resubmit for Review
The current version of the manuscript is not acceptable for publication, requiring substantial revision. Nonetheless, the work demonstrates clear potential. Authors are invited to submit a thoroughly revised version, which will undergo a new round of editorial and peer review. The revised paper must align with the scope and quality standards of Evangelikal.
3. Revision
The manuscript shows promise but requires specific changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are expected to revise the paper in line with reviewer and editor feedback and resubmit it within three months of receiving the decision letter. A detailed response addressing each comment point-by-point must accompany the revised submission. Additional rounds of review may be necessary. Failure to address the requested revisions adequately may lead to rejection.
4. Accepted
The manuscript has been accepted for publication, subject to final checks and minor revisions. These may include sub-editing and formatting adjustments to ensure full compliance with Evangelikal’s publication standards. Once finalized and approved by the editorial office, the paper will be forwarded for publication.
.png)
_.png){kind=logo}
