IJTARP Author Guidelines
Updated May 2022
It is always disappointing when we have to advise authors that significant information is missing, especially on the occasions when it is not feasible for them to go back and collect the information. IJTARP, like most reputable journals, therefore issues Guidelines for Authors and these include suggestions for a structure that authors can follow, as you will see below. Please note that these Guidelines are in addition to the IJTARP Code of Publication practice and ethics and the IJTARP Code of Research Practice and ethics.
Title - short titles tend to be unhelpful – readers need titles that give them a good idea of what might be in the paper, so they will be able to decide whether to read it.
Abstract – in addition to the title, this is the main item that potential readers will see. It is also the information that gets quoted elsewhere, such as in the various databases that people may be searching. For IJTARP, we also currently provide abstracts in several languages and these are accessible for general Internet searches; potential readers may then use Google or a similar translation service if they want to read the article. It is important, therefore, that the Abstract should summarise the content of the paper - what the activity done involved, the background to it (often a literature review), the methodology used for the practice and for any research, who was involved (subjects, participants, clients and authors, researchers, administrators), the results and the conclusions. It may help to think of the Abstract as something that provides enough information that there is no need to read the paper, whilst at the same time tempting people to want to read more details.
Key Words – like the Title and Abstract, these are important for people who are searching.
Literature Review – this is really the introduction to most papers about practice or research, although if you are writing a theory paper it may be a significant proportion of the total words. It should contain a critical summary of what has been written before. This will include the development of theories, and/or a review of relevant research studies or case studies that have been conducted previously. It is important that the review is balanced, so it should include critique of previous material and not be simply a neutral listing. This section could begin with an introduction to the paper, but often that will not be necessary because it is obvious from the Title and the reader will of course have already seen the Abstract.
References - now that so many journals are available online, it is easy to search for prior articles on relevant topics. We are aware that access to the Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ) is restricted to ITAA members and those with access to publisher databases but we recommend that you access this if possible. IJTARP itself is open access and therefore freely available online. The first issue of IJTARP (in 2010) contained lists of all known research studies at that time. We are hope you will search any relevant TA journals that may be published in your own language, so that we can bring those materials to the attention of readers. We also welcome references from non-TA journals.
It is a good idea to check reference lists in any articles you find as they will sometimes be inaccurate. Additionally, it is not enough to simply quote an author name as being referred to by another author – give full references so that your readers can follow up if they wish. If you cannot access the source, the convention is that you write that you are quoting one author who was quoting another, although it is more professional to go back to the original source if this is possible, and then quote the original author directly.
Questions that Reviewers consider - is the literature review relevant; is it up-to-date; is there anything missing? Are the concepts properly defined and referenced; are points of controversy and consensus included; does the author identify/analyse gaps in existing knowledge?
Note: IJTARP will accept theory papers that are a comprehensive Literature Review that provide useful background information, that readers may go on to apply in practice or research.
Objectives/Hypotheses - there should be a clear statement of what you have set out to do, or to prove, or to find out. For a research paper, this should always include how you took into account the possibility that the opposite may turn out to be the case – what is known as the null hypothesis. For example, if you set out to show that a particular application of transactional analysis had a positive impact on the subjects/participants, you should also check whether it had no impact, or even a negative impact. It is only by demonstrating that you checked that you can claim that such an outcome did not happen.
For a practice paper, you should still demonstrate how you took into account that the approach to practice you were using might not have been the most appropriate for the client – readers can learn just as much from reading about what did not work as they can from descriptions of interventions that had the expected impact.
Questions that Reviewers consider - are the objectives of the activity or the hypotheses for research clearly stated; has the author considered possible outcomes from different perspectives; is it clear how the objectives/hypotheses have arisen within the context of the situation described in the literature review; did the author consider potential negative as well as positive outcomes?
Funding Sources - if you have received any funding, this needs to be stated clearly so that readers can judge whether this might have influenced what you did. You may need to include some comment to reassure the readers that you took care not to be influenced. For example, readers will expect to see evidence of careful boundary management if you are given a grant by a transactional analysis association and you are setting out to prove that transactional analysis is an effective approach.
Ethical Considerations – unless you are producing a paper about theory only, this section must always be included because there are always ethical considerations when we undertake practice or research. The most obvious is that there may be a clash of priorities between the needs of the client(s) and the needs of the author(s). For example, careful consideration may be needed to ensure that the use of questionnaires before and after working with a client does not somehow interfere with the work being done. Or the need to operate to a specific protocol in order to measure the impact of a specific approach may discourage an author/ practitioner from choosing a different style of intervention that might be more helpful to the client.
Ethical considerations also include aspects such as how to ensure that there is genuinely informed consent - that participants really understand what they are agreeing to. For example, does a therapy client who has never previously experienced therapy really know what might happen, do the management of an organisation really understand how employees might behave when they learn about autonomy?
Confidentiality, including the protection of participant identities, is also an ethical consideration. Even if an organisation or individual gives permission for their name to be published, this should not be done without careful consideration of any possible implications.
Another significant aspect of ethical practice is giving participants the right to withdraw from a study. This can be a particularly difficult right to manage because it may well threaten the viability of the activity. It is important that this right is given without any ulterior discouragement, and that the author does not react to any withdrawal in a way that puts pressure on the participant to change their mind (such as inviting the participant to feel guilty about letting the author down).
Note that this section is titled ethical ‘considerations’ – what is required is that the author describes how they considered ethics. In cases where an Ethical Committee is consulted, the paper should still contain enough information about what was taken into account.
Questions that Reviewers consider – how comprehensively has the author considered the ethical implications; how competently have they ‘taken care’ that participants are giving informed consent?
Note – the ethics of writing for journals include proper attention to copyright. Anything more than a quotation needs permission from the original author and/or publisher unless the material is written as a review and critique and is not published commercially (which of course applies to IJTARP). IJTARP also requires authors to confirm that their material has not been published before, is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere, and will not be sent for publication elsewhere after it has appeared in IJTARP, or being rejected, without the written agreement of IJTARP. We are happy to work with authors so that they can produce different versions of papers about their practice or research with a view to inclusion in a range of publications.
Note – you need to confirm that you have obtained permission (s) from any clients/participants/ organisations within the activity: you are required to indemnify IJTARP against any legal action resulting from publication (check that your professional indemnity insurance covers this).
Methodology – it may be easier to think of this part as consisting of several subsections (not necessarily in the following order).
Methods: a description of how the research or practice, or the review of theory, was conducted (this may refer back to previous material in the Literature Review); how was it predicted that such methods would relate to the objectives/hypotheses; numbers involved, timings, locations in which activity was conducted; techniques used such as questionnaires, interviews, pre and post measures; what the author(s) and any others actually did.
Research or practice philosophy: the rationale for the method(s) chosen; why those methods and not others; and, importantly, how the author and their conscious and unconscious beliefs may have impacted on the activity.
Sample/Subjects/Participants/Clients- who was being studied; how were they identified (were they chosen or did they volunteer); what is known about them generally that might have any impact on the results of the activity (e.g. gender, age, physical and/or mental health status, relationship, employment, financial and/or educational status, geographical information, etc); what is known about them specifically that is relevant to the activity (e.g. employing organisation, hierarchical level, systemic considerations, mental health classifications (and who did the classifications/what are their qualifications), etc).
Questions that Reviewers consider - do we know enough about the subjects, participants, clients; were they appropriate subjects or recipients for the research or practice being conducted; has the author or practitioner collected information on all characteristics of the subjects that might impact on the results?
Author/Practitioner/Researcher – who is conducting the activity; who is writing the article – although confidentiality needs to be observed, it is usual to provide some information within an article to indicate any information that may have had an impact on what is being described – this may involve any of the characteristics mentioned above for the participants.
Questions that Reviewers consider – do we know enough about the person who conducted the activity that is being described; do we know enough about the author if that is not the same person as conducted the activity? Is there information currently omitted to maintain the confidentiality of the author, which should be included before publication?
Results - this section should contain the results of the research or practice, presented as neutrally as possible so that readers can consider their own interpretations. For a research study, this section will often contain charts, figures, diagrams, etc, as a visual presentation can make trends more obvious; there should also be enough data so that other authors can conduct their own analyses if they wish. For a practice paper, diagrams may also be helpful. It may also be appropriate to show results against any diagrams that may have been included in the Literature Review. TA concepts may be especially relevant in this section.
Enough information should be included about any analytical methods so that the reader can understand any calculations or manipulations that have been undertaken on the data. It is important that any comments in this section are supported by the data. It may be necessary to conduct further calculations that check whether sample sizes are sufficiently large for the results to be extrapolated to wider populations.
Questions that Reviewers consider – are the results presented clearly and in sufficient detail; were the analytical methods used appropriate; have appropriate TA concepts been applied; do calculations take into account sample sizes?
Discussion – this is where the author can discuss the implications of their results; having kept the Results section neutral, the author can now include their own opinions, speculations and suggestions, provided these are clearly labelled as such.
In addition to commenting on the meaning of the results, this section will also include discussion about the contribution that the activity might make to existing knowledge and practices. Suggestions for future activity, including practice and/or research, may also be highlighted.
Limitations - it is essential that this section includes comment on the potential limitations of what has been described within the paper. This might relate to possible author bias, small sample sizes, any aspects of the practice or research that with hindsight might have been dealt with differently, and any unexpected findings that might indicate areas needing more investigation.
Note: IJTARP will accept papers with clearly stated Limitations indicating that the findings are unreliable and/or cannot be extrapolated from. Such papers contribute background and ideas for future activity by others, and it is important that they are published.
Conclusion - this is an optional section that may include a final summary of aspects that the author considers to be particularly significant, especially as it relates to potential activity in the future. It is not a summary in the normal sense of the word because that has been provided as the Abstract.
Questions that Reviewers consider when they reach this point – is the paper coherent – does the literature review lead into the stated objectives/hypotheses, and these into the methodology, and thence into results and discussion; does the paper add to the body of knowledge, in terms of theory and practice; what, if any, revisions might be needed?
References - IJTARP uses APA (American Psychological Association) Guidelines (currently 7 edition, 2022), with some small modifications that relate to formatting style. There is no need to buy the APA Manual as an Internet search will provide several summaries produced by universities. Authors should access the most recent issue of IJTARP, where they will see examples of how the referencing appears. Formatting of references will also be checked at the final editing stage. Please note that APA, and many online reference sorting systems, need plenty of full stops.
Basically, in the text we expect to see the author last/family name(s) and year of publication within the text, followed by p. xxx for any quotations. If you put the author name (s) within your text, you then show the year of publication and any page numbers for quotations, in brackets after it. Alternatively, you can write your comment and put the author last/family name and year of publication in brackets.
Examples: Berne (1961) wrote that . . . or, after your comment, put (Berne, 1961) or, after a quotation, put Berne, 1961, p.111)
For two authors, put XXXX and YYYY (year of publication) or (XXXX and YYYY year of publication). For three or more authors, show all names the first time you refer to them, and afterwards put first author name et al (year of publication).
Examples: (Lieberman, Yalom, Fredricks, Stein and Miles, 1973) - then Lieberman et al (1973)
In the References listing it should show last/family name, initials or first names of all author(s). year of publication (in brackets). title of book (in italics). name of book publisher. DOI if there is one.
# Note that APA expects the initial(s) only but this is no longer enough for Internet searches – so please include first names of authors if you know them and we will retain them for publication.
Example: Gallwey, Timothy. (2000). The Inner Game of Work. Random House. DOI as https etc.
For articles in journals, show last/family name, initials or first name of author(s). year of publication (in brackets). title of article. name of journal (in full please and in italics), volume/issue of journal as xxx(yy) (with the volume number in italics like the name of the journal), page numbers as 111-999. (no p or pp needed before page numbers). DOI if there is one.
Example: McNeel, John. (1982). Redecisions in psychotherapy: A study of the effects of an intensive weekend group workshop. Transactional Analysis Journal 12(1), 10-26. DOI as https etc.
For chapters, show last/family name, first name or initials of author(s). year of publication (in brackets). title of chapter. In first name or initials and last/family name, of editor(s). (Ed or Eds.),.followed by name of book (in italics). page numbers as pp. 111-999. name of publisher.
Example: Groder, Martin. (1977). Asklepieion: An integration of psychotherapies. In Graham Barnes (Ed), Transactional Analysis after Eric Berne. (pp. 134-137). Harper’s College Press.
Do not delay submitting a paper because the references may not be formatted correctly – that can be sorted out whilst the paper is being reviewed.
Author Details – please submit these separately and they will be added before publication. IJTARP shows for each author the name, TA and other qualifications, and an email address. If your TA qualifications are in line with those from ITAA/EATA, please ensure that you add your field(s) of application. For other TA qualifications, please indicate which TA institution applies and follow the requirements of that institution for how the qualification is written.
Formatting
Please submit your paper as a word document, rtf or similar. Do not submit as a pdf.
Please use minimal formatting. Do not use footnotes and do not embed bibliographic field codes. (You might want to also save the version with codes in case revisions are needed after reviews are done).
Please provide original data tables for any graphs etc and not just the final charts, so we can ensure good quality reproduction.
You may include tables, figures, etc within the text or at the end; we will decide final positions depending on page formatting constraints.
Please ensure you have permission(s) to reproduce any material from the works of other authors.
Please ensure that your identity is not shown within the text, so the paper can be sent for blind peer review. To refer to your own publications in the references, show your name as a normal reference in the text – do not write about yourself as “I” or “The author” when you refer to your own publications. This can be changed before publication if you prefer to use the less formal style.
Use double quotes for direct speech and quotations; include page number(s) for quotations.
Single quotes may be used for non-TA concepts when first introduced (and referenced).
Use lower case for transactional analysis concepts except for the names of ego states, drivers, or process scripts, the positions on the miniscript or drama triangle, etc, where initial capitals are customarily used to differentiate the terms from the everyday use of the same words.
Use italics and reference transactional analysis concepts when first mentioned.
Non-discriminatory language is essential. Where discriminatory language appears in quotations (such as from publications published many years ago), indicate with (sic) to denote that it is there only for historical accuracy.
Note also that IJTARP uses English spelling of English rather than American, although quotations will be left in American English spelling if that was used in the original material.
