Academic Leadership is a quarterly, peer-reviewed online periodical focusing on all aspects of academic leadership including research reports and interpretive articles, essays and critical reviews of books and teaching materials, and academic leadership perspectives.

We welcome submissions from a wide community of practitioners—from professors, teachers, trainers, and support specialists to program administrators and leaders inK-12 educational leadership positions. 

We accept both APA Style and Chicago Style.  If you select Chicago, the following material will assist you in refining your submission (Chicago: style sheet ).  If you select the American Psychological Association (APA) style, please consult our style sheet for examples of correct usage.

Deadlines:
First Issue of Publication Edition-January, February, & March
Deadline for Submissions-December 1
December 1-15-The Review Board reviews the submissions.
December 16-20-The editors make final preparations for the articles to published in the first issue of the year.

Second Issue of Publication Edition-April, May, & June
Deadline for Submissions-March 1
March 1-22-The Review Board reviews the submissions.
March 22-29-The editors make final preparations for the articles to
published in the second issue of the year.

Third Issue of Publication-July, August, & September
Deadline for Submissions-June 1
June1-22-The Review Board reviews the submissions.
June 22-29-The editors make final preparations for the articles to
published in the Third issue of the year.

Fourth Issue of Publication-October, November, & December
Deadline for Submissions-September 1
September 1-22-The Review Board reviews the submissions.
September 22-29-The editors make final preparations for the articles to
published in the Third issue of the year.

 

Manuscript Submissions: Send submissions to the editor-in-chief, Kathy Dale    ( kdale@fhsu.edu ). Save each of the following items in its own, separate file.

§ Single-spaced manuscript in a Word or HTML file. Please include the full name, job title, organizational affiliation, and e-mail address of each author. (Personal information will be removed before the manuscript is subjected to peer review.)

§ Brief abstract (100 words or fewer).

§ Biographical note and high-quality JPEG photo for each author (see our style guidelines for author biographies).

§ Any supplementary files, labeled as requested in our guidelines for article supplements.

§ Manuscript should be in Times New Roman font and 12 point type.

Article Length: We seek articles that are substantive but concise (up to 20 pages). We encourage authors to expand and illuminate key concepts by linking to supplementary files (e.g., graphic images, tables, exhibits, audio clips, video clips, and embedded flash files) from the article proper. Such materials take full advantage of the Web's multimedia capacities, thereby enhancing the interactive educational experience for readers. Article supplements do not count toward the word limit stated above. They must, however, add meaning to the main text rather than simply repeat information within it. For more information and related policies, see our guidelines for article supplements.

Conference Presentations: We will consider a manuscript that has been presented at a conference or even published in conference proceedings. Disclose conference information at the end of the manuscript, imitating this example: [This article was modified from a presentation at the NCPEA annual conference in Branson , MO , August 2004.] If possible, provide hyperlinks for the presentation file (if available in Web conference proceedings), the sponsoring organization, and the conference home page.

The Review and Revision Process

Promising manuscripts enter a double-blind review process . Reviewers comment on an article’s strengths and weaknesses, provide suggestions to authors, and make general recommendations about publication. The editor-in-chief reviews these comments and sends the author(s) suggestions for revision and an invitation to submit the revised article again.

Authors are free to respectfully disagree with any element of the critiques, but they should provide justification for not complying with major revision requests. Productive, collegial interaction among authors, reviewers, and editors ultimately allows us to produce the most professional and readable articles in the field of educational leadership.

We retain an electronic copy of every original submission and subsequent reviewed and revised drafts; we encourage authors to do the same. These documents become useful references as the manuscript evolves.