Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review
The editors of the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review always seek new articles and book reviews. If you are interested in contributing, please contact us with the subject of your article or the title of the book you would like to review. We prefer books published within the last decade, however, we will consider earlier titles. We especially encourage reviews of scholarly books on NRMs and religious violence published in languages other than English. The majority of our contributors are established scholars, but we also invite submissions from independent scholars, graduate students, and postgraduate students.
Guidelines for Articles
Article manuscripts should be approximately 7,000+ words, but we may accept upwards of 10,000 words as well. We also accept short notes from 1,000 to 5,000 words. Article manuscripts are double-blind peer-reviewed.
Your article manuscript should begin with the title, your name, affiliation (if an independent scholar, name plus city and country of residence), an abstract (up to 150 words), keywords, and the body of the article. Article manuscripts should be submitted by email as attachments to [email protected].
Guidelines for Reviews
Book reviews fall into two categories: reviews of individual books (500 to 2,000+ words) and review essays (3,000 words to article length). Submissions may be written in any standard form of English (e.g., British English and American English) and any standard footnoting-citation style is acceptable as long as the style is used consistently throughout.
Reviews should provide a concise (though not overly-brief) overview of contents, while simultaneously highlighting the major issues addressed by the book and providing a constructive appraisal of its contents. One of the ASRR's primary goal is to keep scholars abreast of developments in the field, and this purpose is best served if reviews give readers a fairly complete picture of the publication (within the limitations imposed by the book review genre). If relevant, the book should also be framed in terms of comparisons with other publications on the same or closely related topic(s).
Reviews should help readers understand why the book under review is worth reading. Reviewers can express their own views and preferences in a way that communicates their expertise. Any criticisms should be constructive and never personal. Page numbers should be provided for any quotation used in the review. For reviews of individual books, try to avoid footnotes or endnotes. Reviewers whose native language is not English should consult with the editor before submission to make sure their reviews are edited into idiomatic English.
Your review manuscript should begin with the book information, then the body of your review, and then your name and affiliation (if an independent scholar, name plus city and country of residence) at the end. Please cite your book in the following style:
Book Title and subtitle [English translation if necessary]. Author(s) or Editor(s). City, State or Country: Publisher and year of publication year. Number of front matter pages (roman numerals) + number of text pages. Format (hardback, paperback, ebook). Price (sometimes provided in multiple currencies). ISBN. All material should be submitted as email attachments to [email protected].
Copyright and Publication Agreement
Copyright to the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review is held by Academic Publishing, Inc.
As a condition of publication in ASRR, authors must complete the Publication Agreement that gives the journal permission to publish the author's work. You can download the form below:
Completed format should be returned by e-mail to [email protected]. If necessary completed forms may also be returned to this address:
Academic Publishing, Inc.
c/o Philosophy Documentation Center
P. O. Box 7147
Charlottesville, VA 22906 - USA
Completed forms must be received prior to publication.
Publication Ethics Statement
The editorial team of the Alternative Spirituality and Religion Review is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors or institutions connected to the paper.
The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question if necessary. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.