Call for Papers
The submitted articles should respect the following general structure and layout: 4-10 pages including References, Tables, Figures & Annexes.
All accepted papers will be published after the conference as a conference proceedings volume (ISBN, indexed in the international database: Scopus, ErihPlus, Ulrich’s Periodicals Directory, Index Copernicus International, Ebsco, RePEc, CEEOL, Google Academics, ORCID, Universal Impact Factor).
All papers published in this version of conference proceedings volume will be submitted to Thomson Reuters Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (Web of Science) for evaluation in order to be included in the list.
Studies and researches papers
The papers focused on studies and researches should present the following structure:
- Paper Rationale
- Paper theoretical foundation and related literature
Literature review papers
The papers focused on literature review should present the following structure:
- A concise definition of a topic under consideration (this may be a descriptive or argumentative thesis, or proposal), as well as the scope of the related literature being investigated. (Example: If the topic under consideration is ‘women’s wartime diaries’, the scope of the review may be limited to published orunpublished works, works in English, works from a particular location, time period, or conflict, etc.)
- The introduction should also note intentional exclusions. (Example: “This review will not explore the diaries of adolescent girls.”)
- Another purpose of the introduction is to state the general findings of the review (what do most of the sources conclude), and comment on the availability of sources in the subject area.
- Main Body
- Each work should be critically summarized and evaluated for its premise, methodology, and conclusion. It is as important to address inconsistencies, omissions, and errors, as it is to identify accuracy, depth, and relevance.
- Use logical connections and transitions to connect sources.
- The conclusion summarizes the key findings of the review in general terms. Notable commonalities between works, whether favourable or not, may be included here.
- This section is the reviewer’s opportunity to justify a research proposal. Therefore, the idea should be clearly re-stated and supported according to the findings of the review.