Submitting an Article to Eukaryon
Methods of Nomination and Article Submission
1. Faculty can directly nominate student work, as long as the student author(s) has agreed to be nominated.
2. Students are encouraged to self-nominate their work, but must also get the approval of a faculty sponsor. The sponsor does not have to be the instructor of the course from which work was derived.
Senior theses are automatically accepted without revision if they received distinction. If they did not receive distinction, we will review them before acceptance. 2014 theses will be considered for the 2015 issue and must be submitted to Eukaryon by May 1 (2014).
Submitted work does not need to be formatted in any specific way. We will format the reviewed work, if it is accepted for Eukaryon publication. All submissions must be sent to Eukaryon (firstname.lastname@example.org) as an email attachment (word document). However, if only a print copy is available with the instructor (for example, because a student has already graduated), then that will be acceptable for a faculty nominated student work.
Late fall submissions: All submissions received by December will be reviewed swiftly and editorial decisions will be made before fall semester classes end, in time for a 2015 publication. Accepted work will be published in the 2015 issue.
We understand that a significant amount of written work this fall will only be generated after November 25. We will review those works as soon they are submitted. If submissions are of superior quality and do not require revisions and minimal copy-editing (less than 20% of last year’s acceptances fell in this category) they will be published in the 2015 issue. If they need revision before acceptance or extensive copy-editing, they will not be published in the 2015 edition.
Spring semester submissions: They will be considered for the 2016 issue and we will review such work throughout the spring semester and in fall 2015.
Eukaryon Review Process
In order to highlight the most exemplary academic work at Lake Forest College and support high journalistic standards, Eukaryon maintains a high level of selectivity for submitted work. The acceptance of a submission is an honor and implies that the author will be in attendance at Eukaryon’s Inauguration, where their name will be called and they will be presented with a certificate and a complimentary copy of the print journal.
1. Once a submission is received, it is moved to a shared folder in the cloud that can be accessed by all of Eukaryon’s executive board.
2. We inform authors and the nominator/sponsor by email that we have received the manuscript. We expect that the review will take no longer than one month from this date.
3. Author names are removed and the manuscript is assigned to two readers in the review board (after ensuring lack of conflict of interest). If both reviewers have the same decision (they complete a written review sheet that is kept as permanent record), then we inform the authors of that decision (“Accept”, “Accept Pending Revision”, “Reject”). If the two reviewers disagree, a third reviewer becomes involved to break the tie. If accepted, it moves on to the Copy-Editing Board. If the article is accepted pending revision, authors receive two weeks to revise, after which the Review Board makes a final decision. Upon acceptance we ask that the author(s) of the work sign an agreement that states their work is in accordance with Lake Forest College’s academic honesty policy.
4. Accepted papers move from Review to Copy-Editing Board. Copy-editing takes at least one week and involves correcting any errors in grammar, spelling, usage, and style in accepted articles before they appear in the print and online editions. Marked versions of the articles will be sent to all authors for final proofing. All copy-editing changes must be approved or rejected within one week.
5. Edited articles move to Publications Board, which formats them according to Eukaryon’s style guide for inclusion in the print and online editions of the journal. All print formatting is completed in Adobe InDesign. During this time, Eukaryon requests a short biography from accepted authors. Author photographs, which are taken by Biology staff within the Johnson Science Center, will be used as article thumbnails on the online edition. Please notify Eukaryon if you would not like your photo to be included.
6. We will completely and permanently archive all accepted submissions on the Eukaryon website in both HTML and PDF format. All emails between Eukaryon and authors and faculty nominators/sponsors will also be archived. This archive will be maintained by the Business/Records Manager.
These are general guidelines. For articles from classes, follow the rubric given to you by your instructor.
- Articles should be in Microsoft Word format (.doc or .docx) with two columns and one-inch margins (please refer to examples in Eukaryon’s print edition).
- Text should be single-spaced.
- Please indicate the class/project for which they were written.
- Title should be in app caps, 14pt Gill Sans Light
- All section headings should be in 12pt Gill Sans Light
- All other text should be in 8pt Arial
- Include figures in the text directly following reference to them in the results section. Do not place figures before you describe them in the text.
- Please submit JPEG versions of all figures separately with “figure number” as the filename. The image quality of submitted figures is significantly diminished in the print edition if images are not submitted separately.
- In addition, please submit all figures in one PowerPoint file (one figure per slide) with the legend (in Arial) included on each figure’s slide.
- Each component of the figure must be grouped.
Please submit Word document, JPEG images, and PowerPoint file on one CD. In addition, please print out a hard copy of the Word document.
Primary Article/Senior Thesis Content
All primary articles must have the following section headings (in this order):
Title and Professional Affiliation
Introduction with proper referencing
Results with proper figures
Materials and Methods
Acknowledgements and References
Concise and in active voice
Your name(s), department affiliation, Lake Forest College, Lake Forest, IL 60045
No more than 250 words
One to two background sentences
Three to five sentences about what was done and results
A concluding sentence
Include background information (properly referenced); explain why you conducted this study
Why is this study relevant to society?
State your hypothesis and specific aims
Make sure the language is cohesive and flowing (throughout the paper as well)
Use subheadings to describe major findings
Describe results, DO NOT interpret
Organize in a chronological fashion—tell a story
Reference figures as you describe
Figures and tables should have effective titles, labels, and legends
Begin with a statement about general findings and significance of study
DO NOT restate results; interpret them and compare results to what was expected
Address results in chronological order
Address if hypothesis was supported or not; if not, state why
Suggestions for future research
Highlight overall significance of study’s findings in a concluding paragraph
Methods and Materials
Use subsections, each titled with the method’s name
Address all techniques used
Show sample calculations
Acknowledgements and References
Thank all who helped with data generation, analysis and lab report writing.
Use MLA format for all cited references (use MLA in-text citation as well).
Include articles, reviews, books, and textbooks consulted for your article.
Ten references are sufficient.
Disease Review Article Content
A disease review article discusses recent findings pertaining to a specific disease or disorder that could change the way we investigate the disease. The review should identify and synthesize all relevant information to formulate the best approach to a diagnosis, treatment, and/or model for the disease. The review should answer a focused question using the analysis of existing review and research articles; use of conclusions from these studies is necessary. This information should prompt a change in some aspect of the disease diagnosis/treatment.
Title and Affiliation
Define topic,purpose, and relevance
Things to consider, including epidemiology, infection rate or percentage, known information from the past, what prompted new hypothesis, etc.
Discuss physiology by use of recent clinical/experimental studies, conclusions and data,
connect different aspects of the disease
Tell a biological story
Use of sections and subsections is ABSOLUTELY necessary
Present a model/possible therapies/suggestions for future research, and provide a short summary of the conclusion you formed from you research
Should be current research that supports key statements in the paper, 20 references is a normal amount
News and Views Article Content
Should be creative and interesting, draw the reader in, can include a strapline or short explanatory sentence
“News” should be introduced in first paragraph of paper with refrence to those who are not familiar in the field
Background research on topic should follow the “news” so the breakthrough is understood
Include why the breakthrough is important, what does it implicate?
Content should tell or give hints as to what are the author’s “views”
No headings, only smooth transitions in between paragraphs
Paper should not read like a textbook; readers will have general scientific knowledge
Specialized jargon should be avoided as much as possible but definition of necessary difficult terms is acceptable
Articles should be 600-900 words in length
Should include at least one figure that aids in explanation of findings
6-10 references is acceptable (includes the newsworthy paper)
No acknowledgements should be made
Research Proposal Content
Concisely states the issue to be investigated or conveys significant aspect of proposal
States background and importance of project (details, justification, and relevance)
Discusses/summarizes pertinent previous studies (cite material)
How will the research help fix the problem?
Touches upon major goals for project
Includes why, what, and how (this is more along the lines of specific experiments)
Builds on previous experiments
Has realistic number of feasible experiments
Outlines experiments with enough detail for reader to get a firm grasp
Provides explanation of why using described approach
Considers successes and pitfalls
Makes predictions or alternate interpretation
Summarizes how research will advance understanding of subject area
Notes urgency, potential payoff, and implementation
Book/Film Review Content
A book/movie review is a less formal kind of scientific writing geared at responding to other works. The point this type of review is not to “bash” another’s work but to inform others so that they can make a decision for themselves whether to read/view the work. It should say whether the book/movie is interesting, based on or relevant to scientific findings, clear and comprehensive among other things.
Introduction is creative drawing the reader in
Briefly summarizes plot
Language creates interest
Reviewer’s position is clear but not outright stated
Has stated theme
Selected key moments to support theme
Describes some scientific content for lay person
Describes some scientific content for other scientists
(Look for scenes, dialog, and anecdotes whie reading)
Offers reviewer’s feelings (the best reviews tie the conclusion back to the introductory part of the paper)
Note: Book Reviews can be written in two ways. The first way is to write a straight book review that says this is what is in the book and this is what I think of it. The second way is go off on a creative tangent that pulls in elements of the book and hints at how the reviewer feels at the book.