We invite submission of commentaries on contemporary issues or recent publications in DCJ. Commentaries are expected to be sharp analyses that are novel and thought-provoking. Must be submitted within three months of the principal article’s publication date. Commentaries are peer-reviewed to different criteria than academic journal articles, allowing personal opinions to be expressed. The word limit for commentaries is 4,000 words including references and an abstract of up to 150 words.

Author guidelines

Commentaries should be between 2,000 and 4,000 words (including title, abstract, references and endnotes), be submitted in OpenOffice or Word format and use APA referencing style (6th edition).

 A commentary may

1. challenge one or more aspects of the principal article, arguing another position from that in the principal article.
2. expand on the position taken in the principal article to push the argument further.
3. apply a theory or methodology to one or more issues raised in the principal article.
4. reflect on personal experiences with one or more issues raised in the principal article.
5. comment on the pertinence of one or more issues raised in the principal article in other local or cultural contexts. 

• Commentaries must be sole-authored.
• The title should emphasizes your key message.
• Include an abstract of up to 150 words.
• Identifying the key issues you want to raise in your abstract.
• Provide a reference to the principal article but refrain from summarizing it. In other words, assume the reader has read the principal article immediately before reading your commentary.
• Keep general praise for the principal article to a minimum.
• Use respectful language and be mindful of potentially defamatory statements.
• Only cite references absolutely essential to support your argument.
• Conclude with your take-home message.
• Must be submitted within three months of the principal article’s publication date.

General layout

A4, portrait, margins 2.5cm left, right, top and bottom

Body Text: Calibri Light 11pt, justified, double-spaced

First level headings: Calibri Light, 11pt, bold, upper case first letter; e.g., Literature review

Second level headings: Calibri Light, 11pt, bold, italic, upper case first letter; e.g., Literature review

Third level headings: Calibri Light, 11pt, underline, upper case first letter; e.g., Literature review

Do not number headings

Title page

A4, portrait, margins 2.5cm left, right, top and bottom

Title: Calibri light, 11pt, bold, first letters upper case; e.g., Moa Constrictor: Decolonizing Aotearoa

Author name(s): Calibri light, 11pt, bold only last name(s); e.g., Anthony Garcia Gonzales

Affiliation(s): Calibri light, 11pt, e.g., Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Mailing address of corresponding author

Email address of corresponding author

First page

Title: Calibri light, 11pt, bold, first letters upper case; e.g., Moa Constrictor: Decolonizing Aotearoa

Abstract: Calibri Light 11pt, justified, between 100 and 150 words long. The abstract should identifying the key issues to be raised. Referenced and non-standard abbreviations should be avoided or must be defined at their first mention in the abstract itself.

Principal article: Provide a reference to the principal article you are commenting on.

Abbreviations

Define non-standard abbreviations at their first mention in the text. Ensure consistency of abbreviations throughout the article.

Endnotes

Use endnotes instead of footnotes. Number them consecutively throughout the article, using superscript Arabic numbers, e.g. 1

Figures and tables

Commentaries should not include figures or tables.

Third party material

If submissions to this journal contain materials that have not been created by the authors or has been used by the authors in previous submissions to this or other publications, authors are required to clear third-party copyright for online use of these items.

References

Use APA referencing style (6th edition). Please ensure that every reference cited in the text is also present in the reference list (and vice versa).

In-text reference example

Moa constrictor first appeared in 1840 (Smith, 2000a, 2000b, 1999; Tuscany & Jones, 1999; Zappa et al., 2010). Zappa et al. (2010) assert that… but according to Tuscany and Jones (1999) the Moa…

The reference list should be arranged alphabetically. Multiple publications by the same author should be arranged chronologically (the earlier one first). More than one reference from the same author(s) in the same year must be identified by lower case letters placed after the year of publication.

Book, one author

Kakapo, J. (2006). Freedom next time: The Moa and its social construction. London, England: Bantam.

Book, two authors

Morpork, R., & Ruru, C. (2008). Moa policy in New Zealand: Institutions, processes and outcomes. Auckland, New Zealand: Pearson Education.

Book, three authors

Tui, G. J., Fantail, C. T., & Robin, W. E. (2009). The Moa handbook (4th ed.). New York, NY: St Martin’s Press.

Book chapter

Moa, B. (2008). Does constriction affect Moa health? In K. Dew & A. Matheson (Eds.), Understanding health inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 97–106). Dunedin, New Zealand: Otago University Press.

Journal article

Toucan, E. T. (2014). An overview of cyberbullying in Moa education. Adult Learning, 26(1), 21–27.

Newspaper article with author

Kiwi, E. (2007, November 1). Myth-busting the Moa. New Zealand Herald. Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/nzh/

Newspaper article, no author

Moa inquiry doubted. (2009, April 23). The Dominion Post, p. 5. Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/

Website

Kea, R. (n.d.). How to speak Moa. Retrieved April 12,2009, from http://www.tereomoa.ac.nz

Peer review

Submitted commentaries are initially screened by the editors. If the content of the submitted commentary fits the scope of the journal, a small team of reviewers will assess all commentaries on the basis of redundancy and relative merit. In other words, commentaries will most likely be accepted for publication if they are in line with the author guidelines and no commentary submitted by another author addresses the issues raised in the commentary (a) more comprehensively or (b) equally well (i.e. near duplicate) but has submitted their commentary earlier (i.e., first come first served basis).

Reviewers are required to agree to and abide by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewer comments that violate these guidelines will be deleted by the editors. Final decisions for revision or acceptance are made by the editors based on the recommendations provided by the reviewers. Revisions will be based on the comments of the reviewers and editors.