Article manuscripts should be sent as attachments via email to [email protected] in Microsoft Word format. An abstract of not more than 150 words should accompany each submission along with full contact information, including name, title, institution, and email and mailing addresses.
Article manuscripts should be prepared for anonymous review. They must be original, unpublished work and not be under consideration at another publication.
1. Submissions should be written in American English and be between 2400 and 8000 words in length (which equals about 6 to 20 journal pages).
2. Manuscripts should be submitted in Word format (.doc, .docx, .rtf) to facilitate import of styled text into the typesetting system. Any reasonable formatting style and system for notes and references is acceptable at the time of submission. However, if the manuscript is accepted for publication, the author will be asked to bring it into line with the formatting requirements of The Chicago Manual of Style. A helpful resource on The Chicago Manual of Style is available here.
3. Please use a References section to cite full bibliographic information. Do not use notes for citations. If notes are needed, use Endnotes rather than Footnotes, after the main text and before the References section.
4. A complete submission includes full contact information, including name, academic title, institution, phone number, e-mail (preferably both a primary and secondary if possible), and mailing address.
5. All submitted manuscripts are subject to editorial modification during the peer-review process.
6. Prior to publication the author may be asked to provide original source files for any charts or graphs in the manuscript. Authors should avoid the use of charts or graphs copied from online sources, as these may not be suitable for reproduction in print format.
7. If an earlier version of your paper was presented in public, please provide details in the first endnote, e.g., “An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Seventh Annual Conference of the Society for Ethics Across the Curriculum, Ringling School of Art and Design, Sarasota, Florida, November 19, 2006.”
8. Also in the first endnote, credit anonymous reviewer(s) if you feel your paper benefited from those comments (if only to acknowledge that the paper has gone through a blind review process and that the published version of the paper benefited from that process).
9. Break you paper into sections with non-numbered headings (except for the first introductory section), unless there is some other overriding reason not to do so.
Publication Ethics Statement
The editorial team of Teaching Ethics 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 referencesto 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, 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, companies, 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.