Submission Guidelines
Volume 2, Issue 2
Spring 2008
We are currently accepting submissions for the Spring 2008 issue of the 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 toThe.Dartmouth.Apologia@dartmouth.edu
Writing an Abstract
These are the basic components of an abstract:- Motivation/problem statement: Why do we care about the problem? What practical, scientific, theoretical or artistic gap is your research filling?
- Methods/procedure/approach: What did you actually do to get your results? (e.g. analyzed 3 novels, completed a series of 5 oil paintings, interviewed 17 students)
- Results/findings/product: As a result of completing the above procedure, what did you learn/invent/create?
- 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.
- How does the article help to articulate Christian perspectives in the academic community? (1-4)
- How well is the argument supported? (1-4)
- How professional and scholarly is the tone? (1-4)
(Note: This does not mean that the article should be aloof, impersonal, and full of academic jargon. We hope that your article will combine your head and your heart in a way that is authentic, thoughtful, and well-supported.)
- How well does this article encourage thoughtful discussion? (1-4)
Publication Timeline
This is the planned timeline for the editorial process. Thanks to the Lord’s provision we 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. It is a remarkable opportunity to work with such accomplished scholars on articles that thay care as much about as we do. The editing process is a wonderful time of cooperation and collaboration. We look forward to working with you!- Abstract Due: November 26, midnight. (If an abstract is not submitted, we will not consider the paper).
- Receive annotated abstract back from student editors before Winter Break.
- Conference with editor.
- Winter Break.
- Article Due: January 11, midnight.
- Faculty and student editors review articles for content: January 14-25.
- Student editors meet with writers to discuss article revisions: January 25-February 4.
- Second version of article due: February 13.
- Student editors review articles of specifics and meet with writers: February 14-25.
- Final decisions to accept or reject articles for publication.
- Final Version of Article Due: February 29.
- Spring Break.
- Copy editing and Layout: March 25-April 3.
- Send to Publisher: April 4.
If you have any questions feel free to contact one of Editors.