Please read and understand the author's guidelines for the preparation manuscript. The author who submits a manuscript to the editors should comply with the author's guidelines and template. If the submitted manuscript does not comply with the guidelines or using a different format, it will be rejected by the editorial team before being reviewed. The editorial team will only accept a manuscript that meets the specified formatting requirements (downloadable at: Template). This template is designed to assist Author in preparing manuscript; it is an exact representation of the format expected by the editor. To use this template, please just Save As this MS Word file to your document, then copy and paste your document here. All papers submitted to the journal should be written in English language.
- The word limit for the submission is 4000-8000 words (including of footnotes and abstract).
- The sequence of manuscripts following: Title; Abstract; Keywords; Introduction; Method (for original research articles); Results and Discussion; Conclusion; and References.
- Referencing style uses the Chicago Manual of Style.
Title of articles are written with Calibri Light Bold (18 pt) and preferably not more than 14 words. Author(s) name, affiliations and e-mail.
The abstract should be clear, concise, and descriptive. This abstract should provide a brief introduction to the problem, objective of paper, followed by a statement regarding the method and a brief summary of results. Font with Calibri Light (10 pt) and preferably not more than 200 words.
Keywords arranged by alphabetically and should have at least two keywords and maximum five keywords separated by a semicolon (;).
The introduction should be clear and provide the issue to be discussed in the manuscript. At the end of the paragraph, the author/s should end with a comment on the significance concerning identification of the issue and the objective of research.
The method written in descriptive. This Method are optional, only for original research articles.
Results and Discussion
This section is the most important section of your article. Contains the results of the object of study and should be clear and concise.
Conclusion contains a description that should answer the objectives of research. Do not repeat the Abstract or simply describe the results of the research. Give a clear explanation regarding the possible application and/or suggestions related to the research findings.
For submissions to issues published from 2021 onwards, the GHAITSA uses the Chicago Manual of Style in the References at the end of the manuscript. Cite only items that you have read and written on footnotes. Please use Reference Manager Applications like EndNote, Mendeley, Zotero, etc. Use other published articles in the same journal as models. All publications cited in the text should be included in the References section and arranged alphabetically.
The citation quick guide can be found at: http://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html
BOOK REVIEW GUIDELINES
SEMB-J does not require any rigid format for conducting a book review. Reviewers should feel at liberty to approach the review in their own style with the broader aim of contextualizing the work in the literature or policy developments at the time of publication. We welcome reviews about academic books, monographs or edited volumes, policy publications, or reviews on past works that are relevant for re-engaging in theory, policy, and practice related to contemporary issues in legal scholarship.
The remainder of this document sets out some guidelines for potential book reviewers to follow in conducting a review. Word count: We prefer formats between 1000-1500 words. The review should also seek out to cover the questions listed below:
- How is the author’s background and work situated in the broader field of study?
- What is the central argument of the book and how is the work timely in its theoretical or empirical engagement? Does it deliver and does it leave anything out?
- What was the methodology and factual basis of the study? Were there factual errors and oversights or faulty assumptions? We are especially interested in a close review of the sources, extent, and depth of the research.
- Who is the audience of the book?
- How is the structure, prose, length, and other aspects of the books accessibility and readability? Is it enjoyable?
- Are there unique features to the book in terms of illustrations, indexing, bibliographic or other aspects?
- Does the title capture the book’s major argument?
If you would like to follow a general outline, we propose approaching the review under the following headings / sub-sections:
- Introduction: brief description of the subject, aim, and scope. Make sure to outline the central thesis of the book and the key arguments
- Situate within the broader literature both theoretically and empirically. Has this book filled a key gap and how?
- Review the components of the arguments and review the strengths and weaknesses of each of the arguments. Are there key features of the book that were particularly memorable?
- What new questions does the book raise?