Inquiry: Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES

Inquiry invites submission of articles, responses, reviews of the literature, notices, letters, and book reviews for consideration for publication. The goal is to encourage an exchange of ideas about effective pedagogy in critical thinking instruction, about methods of assessing critical thinking skills and dispositions, about systematic errors in our thinking, about enhancing the quality of information on which we base decisions and inferences, about common fallacies in argumentation, and about all other topics that are relevant to critical thinking across the disciplines.

Given the diverse nature of the field and of our readership, we ask that authors present early in the manuscript the manner in which ¡°critical thinking¡± is to be understood.

Submission Procedure

Inquiry welcomes original manuscripts of up to 8,000 words (not including references or notes). Authors wishing to submit longer manuscripts must get approval from the editor prior to submission.

Authors must confirm that they have not used generative AI to contribute to the content of manuscripts submitted to Inquiry. Any other author use of AI tools must be disclosed to the editors at the time of submission.

Manuscripts should be prepared for anonymous peer-review. This means that identyfying information should be removed from the content of the manuscript and the file. The author¡¯s name and contact information should be provided on a separate page, including disciplinary specialty and institutional affiliation. Manuscripts should be submitted by email in Word format (.docx, .doc) to:

Submitted manuscripts must be accompanied by an abstract of 100-150 words on a separate page. Include no more than five key words below the abstract. All manuscript pages, including reference lists and tables, must be double-spaced. All figures must be submitted with their original application file (Excel, Word, etc.). Use of footnotes and endnotes should be limited as much as possible.

Inquiry follows the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association in matters of style. We ask for authors to be consistent in their use of APA Style to facilitate editorial review.

No payment is required for submission or publication in this journal.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Inquiry publishing team is committed to ensuring the integrity of the publication process. Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to confirm a chain of reasoning or experimental result. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.

Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Reviewers must treat received manuscripts as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and ask to be excused from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the paper.

The Publisher will respond to alleged or proven cases of research misconduct, fraudulent publication, plagiarism, or unacknowldged AI-generated content in close collaboration with the editors. The publisher will ensure that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question if necessary. This may include the publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.