Submission Guidelines

Volume 4, Issue 1

Fall 2009

We are currently accepting submissions for the Winter 2009 issue of Apologia. If you would like to contribute an article, poem, short story, or work of art, please take a moment to review our submission guidelines, rubric, and publication timeline. Please send all submissions to
The.Dartmouth.Apologia@dartmouth.edu

Writing an Abstract

These are the basic components of an abstract:
  1. Motivation/problem statement: Why do we care about the problem? What practical, theological, philosophical, or artistic gap does your article address?
  2. Methods/procedure/approach: How do you arrive at your conclusion? (e.g. analyzed 2 novels, examined a historical moment, investigated a person's life)
  3. Results/findings/product: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn/invent/create?
  4. Conclusion/implications: What are the larger implications of your findings, especially for the problem/gap identified in step 1?

Sample Abstract

Galileo Revisited Part 1: From Copernicus to the Inquisition
Authors: Andrew Schuman and Robert Cousins
Article published in Volume I, Issue I

In contemporary society, science and religion are commonly perceived as two competing and irreconcilable forces. This incompatibility is often traced back to Galileo’s conflict with the Roman Catholic Church in the beginning of the seventeenth century. The image of this event that endures in the popular imagination is one of a brilliant scientist who scoffed at the Bible and was unjustly silenced by a Catholic Church blind to reason. A closer look at the historical evidence reveals that this popular understanding is unfounded. Galileo was a devout Catholic and the Church agreed with Galileo that new scientific discoveries necessitated a reinterpretation of Scripture. The conflict was over when reinterpretation was necessary who had the authority to do it. Additionally, a personal conflict between Galileo and the Pope as well as pressures arising from the Thirty Years War served to further exacerbate the issue. Due to these findings, we can firmly conclude that the Galileo affair was not due to a conflict between religion and science. If the uneasy relationship between science and religion that we witness today is due to a fundamental incompatibility, the Galileo affair does not support that conclusion.

Sources (Chicago style)

Richard J. Blackwell, Behind the Scenes at Galileo’s Trial (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006).

Annibale Fantoli, Galileo: For Copernicanism and for the Church Vol.3, trans. George V. Coyne S.J. (Italy: Vatican Observatory Publications, 1994).

Maurice A. Finocchiaro, The Galileo Affair (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989) 256.

Lawence M. Principe, “Galileo’s Trial.” Science and Religion Course No. 4691. John Hopkins University.

Dava Sobel, Galileo’s Daughter (New York: Walker & Company, 1999) 63.

Quality Rubric

These are the essential elements that we are looking for in an article. Also, feel free to read articles from our past issues.

Articles must score at least 9 for publication.

Publication Timeline

This is the planned timeline for the editorial process. We are blessed to have 10 faculty advisors who are committed to helping us publish the best articles possible. They have high standards for us and they devote hours to editing. The editing process is an exciting time of cooperation and collaboration. We look forward to working with you!
God bless!

If you have any questions feel free to contact one of the Editors.