Formatting
We focus on the science, not the formal requirement. We don't want scientists to spend more time formatting papers than writing them. For this reason we have minimal requirements for formatting. Basically, it should look like academic writing. Use any reference system you like, as long as it is sensible.
However, Google Scholar has certain requirements for indexing papers properly. Authors are recommended to follow these requirement as it will ease the indexing of their own work.
To summarize, they are:
- Font size 24 for title.
- Font size 16 for authors.
- No author affiliation on the same line as authors (use footnotes).
- Include a citation of the paper itself in the header.
- Use only the major reference formats. They seem to prefer numbered references instead of APA-style (name, year).
Templates:
The journal's OSF repository has templates in .docx, .odt and .tex formats.
Submissions
To submit a paper, create a thread with the paper and the supplementary material.
Thread titles must have the format: "[journal abbreviation] Title".
Journal abbreviations are:
- [ODP] - Open Differential Psychology
- [OBG] - Open Behavioral Genetics
- [OQSPS] - Open Quantitative Sociology & Political Science
Example submissions title: "[ODP] Predicting Immigrant IQ from their Countries of Origin, and Lynn's National IQs: A Case Study from Denmark"
The post must contain the draft either in text or via link to some readable major format (.doc(x), .odt, .html, .pdf).
The post must contain the abstract.
The post must contain the data.
We prefer that authors use Open Science Framework to host their submissions, code, data and other files. This enables easy management of files and revisions (versioning). It makes it easier for reviewers and others to follow each file as it was in different stages thruout the submission-revision process.
Revisions
Usually, reviewers will request changes or find errors in the paper. Authors can choose which criticism to adhere to, but they should remember that they will need to satisfy a number of reviewers to gain acceptance for publication. When submitting a revision, please make a reply post in the submission thread instead of updating the original post with a new file.
There are two reasons for this. First, this results in the thread marked marked as 'active' which tells reviewers that something has happened in it. This does not happen when one only edits a post. Second, it means that the entire review history can be followed. If one updates the file instead, then the older drafts are no longer available. Optimally, authors should use Open Science Framework to handle the files.
Questions?
FAQ here.
