UI Journal

Guidelines for Submission

The UI Journal is a different kind of refereed publication (see FAQs). Therefore, to provide guidance on how a manuscript should be structured for submission, we offer the following:

Once you have registered as an author, there is a cover page to complete. This information logs the paper into the UI Journal review system and triggers actions by the Editor to initiate the review process.

Without being too prescriptive, the UI Journal suggests to authors the following as basic components of any paper that it receives:


In a paragraph, describe the focus of the paper and touches on its prominent features, especially the kind of analysis undertaken and the main finding that makes its a Letter, Communication, or Article that contributes to the translation of research into practice. In short, what is the takeaway message to readers?


What are the intellectual/theoretical origins of the study? What questions are being asked and/or hypotheses tested? What is the study population and the setting or context? Why should the reader care?


What kind of data were collected? Primary/new or secondary—collected by others but analyzed in a new way? Remember that UI readers come from the full range of STEM disciplines. A majority is not likely to read the disciplinary journals of the authors. Therefore, don’t bog down the paper’s narrative with minute details concerning missing values and statistical tests. Such details may belong in an appendix.


Describe what was found, but also the problems encountered. Indicate the significance of what was learned for the particular population or site. Use tables and figures to illustrate results. You can structure some of this section around such visuals. Is the STEM discipline studied, and the student or professional level of development, representative of others or limited? If a Communication, what is being generalized about adaptation and implementation? If a full Article, what makes the finding or practice scalable?

Conclusion and Discusstion

Discuss the significance of the findings. Was a comparison or control group used? Offer helpful hints to those who might consider adapting or experimenting in similar ways. What constrained the effort on your campus or in your department or organization. Speak to the specific translational value of the study. Suggest what could be done next or differently. Offer a punchline about the general contribution the study makes to the UI community.


This is a given. What literature did you draw upon? Use the following convention to assemble a list in alphabetical order by surname of cited authors. For example:
Frantz, K.J., DeHaan, R.L., Demetrikopoulos MK, Carruth, L.L. (2006). Routes to research for novice undergraduate neuroscientists. CBE- Life Sci Educ 5, 175-187.


When you are done with the sections above, consider what might fit better in an appendix. Label each appendix A, B, . . . The use of appendices will improve the flow and intelligibility of the narrative to the typical reader. Each of these sections invite creativity, clarity, and rigor. Please contact the Editor journal@understanding-interventions.org with questions or comments pre- or post-submission.