Author Guidelines

Authors are requested to read these guidelines carefully before submitting a manuscript to the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal (DRSJ). Manuscripts should be relevant to the journal’s aims and scope, prepared according to the current journal template, and comply with the journal’s editorial, ethical, and publication policies.

The Dynamics of Rural Society Journal accepts two types of manuscripts: Research Articles and Review Articles.

A Research Article should report original empirical research and make a clear scholarly contribution to the relevant field.

A Review Article should provide a critical and well-organized synthesis of existing knowledge using an appropriate review approach.

Authors should select the appropriate article type and follow the corresponding manuscript structure described below.

1. General Submission Requirements

Before submitting a manuscript, authors should ensure that:

• the manuscript is original, has not been previously published, and is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal;
• all authors have approved the submitted version of the manuscript;
• the authors are responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and scholarly content of the manuscript;
• the topic of the manuscript falls within the aims, focus, and scope of the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal;
• the manuscript is written in clear academic English;
• the manuscript is prepared using the current DRSJ manuscript template;
• all citations and references are accurate and complete; and
• the manuscript is submitted through the journal’s Online Journal System (OJS).

Authors who have not previously registered with the journal should create an account before submission. Authors who are already registered should log in using their existing account. Further instructions are available in the Registration and Submission Guide.

Authors should also consult the journal’s relevant policy pages concerning Publication Ethics, AI Tools Usage Policy, Peer Review Process, Plagiarism and Retraction Policy, Open Access Policy, and Copyright and Licensing.

2. Manuscript Length and General Format

Manuscripts should normally contain approximately 5,000–20,000 words, depending on the article type, research design, and complexity of the study.

Manuscripts should be submitted in Microsoft Word (.doc or .docx) format and prepared using the current journal template.

Unless otherwise specified in the journal template, manuscripts should use:

• A4 paper size (210 × 297 mm);
• 2 cm margins on all sides;
• Times New Roman;
• 11 pt main text;
• single line spacing; and
• 6 pt spacing before and after paragraphs.

Detailed formatting requirements for headings, author information, tables, figures, and other manuscript elements should follow the current journal template.

3. Title

The title must be written in English.

It should be clear, concise, specific, and informative and should accurately represent the principal focus of the manuscript.

The title should normally not exceed 20 words.

Authors should avoid unnecessary abbreviations, jargon, formulas, or overly broad expressions. Widely recognized abbreviations may be used where appropriate.

4. Author Names and Affiliations

Author names should be written clearly and consistently without academic titles.

Each author should provide a complete institutional affiliation, including:

• department, faculty, school, or unit where applicable;
• institution or organization;
• city; and
• country.

Different affiliations should be identified according to the journal template.

Authors should carefully verify the spelling and order of all author names before submission.

Authors are encouraged to provide their ORCID iD where available.

5. Corresponding Author

One author should be clearly designated as the corresponding author.

The corresponding author is responsible for communication with the journal throughout submission, peer review, publication, and post-publication correspondence.

A valid and active email address should be provided.

The corresponding author should ensure that all authors have approved the manuscript and are informed of significant editorial decisions.

The corresponding author should ensure that all authors have approved the manuscript and are informed of significant editorial decisions.

6. Abstract

The Abstract must be written in English and should be concise, informative, and self-contained.

It should normally contain 150–300 words and should not include citations.

For a Research Article

The Abstract should briefly present:

research background or problem → objective → methods → main findings → conclusion or principal implication.

For a Review Article

The Abstract should briefly present:

background or rationale → review objective or question → review approach and methods → main findings or synthesis → principal conclusion or implication.

For systematic or scoping reviews, authors should briefly indicate the principal databases or information sources, review process, and number of included sources where appropriate.

7. Keywords

Provide 3–5 keywords or short key phrases that accurately represent the principal topic, concepts, population, context, variables, or analytical focus of the manuscript.

Keywords should facilitate indexing and discoverability and should avoid unnecessary repetition of terms already clearly represented in the title.

8. Research Article

A Research Article should report original empirical research using an appropriate quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods approach.

The recommended structure is:

Abstract → Introduction → Methods → Results and Discussion OR Results + Discussion → Conclusion

A separate Literature Review and/or Theoretical Framework may be included where justified by disciplinary convention, theoretical complexity, or analytical requirements.

Introduction

The Introduction should establish the research context, significance of the topic, current state of knowledge, research gap, and rationale for conducting the study.

Relevant previous studies should be critically synthesized to show:

• what is already known;
• what remains unclear, inconsistent, underexplored, or insufficiently explained; and
• why the present study is needed.

The final part of the Introduction should clearly state the research objective(s), research question(s), and/or hypothesis(es), as appropriate.

The recommended logical progression is:

broader context → significance → current state of knowledge → research gap → rationale and expected contribution → research objective(s), question(s), and/or hypothesis(es).

Methods

The Methods section should clearly explain how the study was designed and conducted.

Where applicable, authors should describe:

• research design or approach;
• research setting or location;
• participants, population, or sample;
• sampling strategy or procedure;
• data sources;
• research instruments or materials;
• data collection procedures;
• variables or analytical categories;
• data analysis techniques;
• reliability, validity, trustworthiness, or methodological rigor; and
• ethical considerations.

The description should focus on what was actually done and provide sufficient information for readers to understand how the findings were produced.

Methodological references should be cited where necessary to justify established procedures, instruments, analytical approaches, or methodological frameworks.

Results and Discussion

Authors may present the Results and Discussion using either an integrated or separate format.

Integrated Results and Discussion

Results and Discussion may be presented within one main section and organized according to substantive themes, variables, dimensions, categories, research questions, or analytical issues.

The general analytical flow should be:

finding → supporting evidence → interpretation → comparison with relevant literature or theory → explanation → contribution or implication.

Subsection titles should reflect substantive content rather than generic labels.

Separate Results and Discussion

Authors may alternatively present Results and Discussion as independent sections.

The Results section should clearly and systematically present the empirical findings.

The Discussion should interpret those findings, explain their significance, relate them to relevant literature and theory, discuss unexpected or contradictory findings where appropriate, and demonstrate the scholarly contribution of the study.

Both formats are acceptable provided that the presentation is clear, coherent, analytical, and scientifically rigorous.

Conclusion

The Conclusion should directly address the research objective(s) or question(s) and present the principal insight and contribution of the study.

Where appropriate, authors may briefly discuss:

• theoretical implications;
• practical implications;
• policy implications;
• methodological implications;
• important limitations; and
• directions for future research.

The Conclusion should not merely repeat the Results and Discussion and should not introduce new data, literature, analyses, or arguments.

9. Review Article

A Review Article should provide a critical and scholarly synthesis of existing knowledge rather than simply summarize individual studies.

The journal may consider appropriate review approaches, including:

• systematic reviews;
• scoping reviews;
• integrative reviews;
• narrative or traditional reviews; and
• systematic reviews with meta-analysis.

Authors should clearly identify the type of review conducted and use an appropriate methodological and reporting approach.

The recommended structure is:

Abstract → Introduction → Review Methods → Results/Findings and Synthesis → Discussion → Conclusion

Introduction

The Introduction should explain why the review is needed and establish the scholarly significance of the topic.

Relevant literature should be used to demonstrate:

• the current state of knowledge;
• important debates or inconsistencies;
• unresolved questions;
• evidence gaps; or
• limitations of previous reviews.

Where previous reviews already exist, authors should clearly explain the additional value or contribution of the present review.

The final part should state the review objective(s) and/or review question(s).

The recommended logical progression is:

broader context → significance → current state of knowledge → evidence or review gap → rationale → review objective(s) or question(s).

Methods

The Methods section should clearly explain how the literature was identified, selected, evaluated, organized, and synthesized.

Where applicable, authors should describe:

• review design;
• protocol or registration;
• eligibility criteria;
• databases and other information sources;
• search strategy;
• study or source selection;
• data extraction or data charting;
• quality appraisal or risk-of-bias assessment; and
• synthesis or analytical procedures.

The level of methodological detail should be appropriate to the selected review type.

Systematic and scoping reviews should follow relevant methodological and reporting standards.

Where applicable, authors should use an appropriate reporting guideline such as PRISMA for systematic reviews or PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews.

PRISMA should be understood as a reporting guideline, not as the review methodology itself.

Results / Findings and Synthesis

This section should present what emerged from the review process and what the body of evidence collectively shows.

For systematic and scoping reviews, authors should normally begin by reporting the study selection process. Where appropriate, a PRISMA or PRISMA-ScR flow diagram should be provided.

Authors should then describe the principal characteristics of the included studies or sources and organize substantive findings into meaningful analytical categories, such as:

• major themes or concepts;
• patterns and relationships;
• interventions and outcomes;
• methodological trends;
• theoretical perspectives;
• geographical or contextual differences;
• areas of agreement or disagreement; or
• evidence gaps.

Authors should synthesize across studies rather than describe one publication after another.

For meta-analyses, appropriate quantitative synthesis and graphical presentation should be provided where relevant.

Discussion

The Discussion should explain what the synthesis means and why it matters.

Authors should interpret the major patterns, consistencies, contradictions, evidence gaps, methodological issues, and theoretical implications identified through the review.

Where relevant, authors should explain whether the review:

• strengthens or confirms existing knowledge;
• clarifies inconsistent evidence;
• challenges established assumptions;
• identifies new patterns or relationships;
• reveals theoretical or methodological weaknesses;
• demonstrates important contextual variation; or
• identifies priorities for future research.

The original scholarly contribution of the review should be stated clearly.

Where appropriate, authors should also discuss implications for theory, methodology, research, professional practice, or policy and acknowledge important limitations of the review.

Conclusion

The Conclusion should directly address the review objective or question and concisely explain:

what the evidence collectively indicates → what important insight emerges from the synthesis → why that insight matters.

The Conclusion should not introduce new evidence, literature, analyses, or arguments.

10. Tables and Figures

Tables and figures should be used only when they improve the clarity and presentation of the manuscript.

All tables and figures should:

• be numbered consecutively;
• have clear and informative titles or captions;
• be referred to in the main text;
• avoid unnecessary duplication of information already presented in the text; and
• be sufficiently clear and legible for publication.

Table titles should be placed above the table.

Figure captions should follow the format specified in the current journal template.

Figures should be provided in a high-quality format such as JPG or PNG where applicable.

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reproduce or adapt copyrighted material from other sources and should acknowledge the original source appropriately.

11. References

References should be relevant, sufficient, authoritative, and appropriate to the topic and article type.

Authors should engage with current peer-reviewed scholarship while also including important foundational or seminal literature where relevant.

Older references should not be excluded solely because of publication date when they remain theoretically, methodologically, historically, or empirically important.

All citations and references should follow the American Psychological Association (APA), 7th Edition.

Authors are strongly encouraged to use reliable reference-management software such as:

• Zotero;
• Mendeley;
• EndNote; or
• another equivalent reference manager.

Authors should carefully verify that:

• every in-text citation appears in the reference list;
• every reference cited in the manuscript is accurate;
• bibliographic information is complete; and
• DOI information is included where available.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that references have not been fabricated, inaccurately generated, or incorrectly attributed.

12. Declarations

Authors should provide the following declarations at the end of the manuscript where applicable.

Author Contributions

Authors should state the contribution of each author to the manuscript.

The use of the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy is encouraged where appropriate.

Ethics Declaration

Research involving human participants should provide appropriate information concerning ethics approval and the approving institution or committee where required.

Informed Consent

Where applicable, authors should state that appropriate informed consent was obtained from research participants.

Funding

All sources of financial support should be disclosed.

If no specific funding was received, this should be stated clearly.

Conflict of Interest

Authors should disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests.

Where none exist, authors should state this explicitly.

Data Availability

Where relevant, authors should indicate whether supporting data are:

• publicly available;
• available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request;
• restricted for ethical, legal, privacy, or confidentiality reasons; or
• not applicable.

AI Disclosure

Where generative AI or AI-assisted technologies have been used substantively in manuscript preparation or the research process, authors should disclose their use in accordance with the journal’s AI Tools Usage Policy.

Acknowledgements

Individuals or organizations that contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria may be acknowledged.

13. Submission Checklist

Before completing the submission, authors should confirm that:

• the manuscript falls within the journal’s aims and scope;
• the manuscript is original and is not under consideration elsewhere;
• all authors have approved the submission;
• author names and affiliations are complete and accurate;
• the corresponding author is clearly identified;
• the manuscript follows the current journal template;
• the manuscript complies with the required word range;
• the Abstract and keywords comply with journal requirements;
• tables and figures are correctly numbered and cited;
• references follow APA 7th Edition and have been checked for accuracy; and
• relevant ethical and publication declarations have been provided;

Submission of a manuscript indicates that the authors have read and agreed to comply with the editorial, ethical, and publication policies of the Dynamics of Rural Society Journal.