Publish with PULP

  PULP gathers and stores the information of all authors in compliance with the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA).

PULP welcomes the submission of book proposals that include a completed PULP application form and a draft manuscript.

  Download the PULP application form

Please email your submission (PULP application form and a draft manuscript) to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. – no posted or couriered copies will be accepted.

Manuscripts should conform to the PULP style guidelines.

  Download the PULP style guidelines

COPYRIGHT, OPEN-ACCESS, AND PRINT ON DEMAND

1. Authors retain copyright.
2. PULP is an open-access publisher. All books are made available on the PULP website under the CC BY licence.
3. The CC BY licence allows reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the creator. The license allows for commercial use. Credit must be given to the creator. You can read more about this licence here: https://creativecommons.org/about/cclicenses/
4. Choosing to publish open access does not eliminate your copyrights, but due to the open nature and wide dissemination, makes it more likely that your work will be reused and/or cited.  
5. Open-access publishing refers to the process of making published academic works freely and permanently available online.
6. Titles published by PULP are also available in printed format at a cost to the purchaser via a ‘print-on-demand’ basis.

THE PROCESS AFTER SUBMITTING YOUR APPLICATION TO PULP

1. The application and draft manuscript are submitted to the PULP Editorial Board for preliminary approval to publish the title, the ultimate approval only happens upon receipt of favourable reviews.
2. If the application is accepted by the PULP Editorial Board, a shepherd is appointed for the manuscript.
3. The shepherd is nominated and approved by the PULP Editorial Board.

THE PEER REVIEW PROCESS

1. PULP relies on an independent, double-blind peer-review process, which includes at least two external reviewers, to uphold the quality and validity of monograph manuscripts and chapters in edited works.
2. The shepherd then identifies possible peer reviewers/referees for the manuscript.
3. The peer reviewers are contacted and supplied with the anonymised manuscript as well as a peer review report form. Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to:
   • Hold no conflicts of interest;
   • Have the necessary expertise to judge manuscript quality;
   • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout peer review;
   • Maintain standards of professionalism, impartiality, objectivity, and ethics.
4. The peer reviewers consider the following in the peer review report: (1) Whether the quality of the research is of a sufficient standard to be published in a scientific journal; (2) Whether the research provides an original contribution to knowledge in the field; (3) Whether the author’s goals are clearly stated and whether the contribution follows through by achieving these goals consistently and cogently; and (4) Whether the author’s assumptions are acceptable and theoretically justified.
5. The peer reviewer then makes one of the following recommendations: (1) Accept without revisions; (2) Accept with minor revisions as indicated; (3) Resubmit with major revisions as indicated; or (4) Reject.
6. If the peer reviewer chooses option (1) Accept without revisions, they must state their reasons very briefly. If they choose option (2) Accept with minor revisions as indicated, they must provide the main reasons, taking into account that these views may be communicated to the author. Where they recommend an acceptance with minor or major revisions, they must indicate with as much clarity as possible the nature of the revisions that they will like to see and where in the manuscript this should be done. If they choose option (3) Resubmit with major revisions as indicated, they must indicate, in some detail, the amendments/additions they recommend. Minor stylistic and editing problems need not be dealt with. Language and style should be considered, in the sense that the author's thoughts must be clearly communicated.
7. The shepherd will communicate the outcome of the peer review reports to the author(s) after an internal review of the peer review report by the shepherd. As the refereeing process is anonymous, the identity of the peer reviewers remains confidential and anonymous when communicating the peer review reports with the author(s).
8. The author must amend the manuscript in line with the peer review reports.
9. All amendments or revisions made in accordance with the peer review suggestions must be made with track changes (and with comments if necessary) in order to accommodate the shepherd upon revision of amendments made.
10. The author must also compile a separate docx document indicating the following: (1) the comment/suggestion of the peer reviewer and (2) where (page and section) and (3) how the author has addressed these comments, concerns, or suggestions of the peer reviewer in the manuscript. This document may be in a tabular format and will assist the shepherd with reviewing the amendments of the author in line with the peer review reports. The author must address all the comments, suggestions, and concerns of the peer reviewer as well as the shepherd.
11. If deemed necessary, the shepherd may require an additional round of peer review to ensure that the amended manuscript is of an acceptable standard and quality for publication.
12. A single negative review, with which the shepherd agrees, may be sufficient to recommend the rejection of the manuscript.

COPYEDITING, LAYOUT, AND PUBLICATION

1. The final acceptance or rejection of the manuscript is subject to the decision of the Editor-in-Chief.
2. The failure to amend the manuscript in line with the peer review reports may result in the rejection of the manuscript.
3. If the manuscript is accepted, the authors receive instructions on how to make a final submittal of the manuscript and its figures. No changes to the manuscript should be made following acceptance.
4. The final submitted manuscript goes through copyediting and professional composition steps. These important and often unheralded steps can have a major impact on the level of professionalism of the manuscript, fixing typos and grammatical errors, improving the exposition and presentation of the manuscript, and ensuring that the graphics are of sufficient quality.
5. Page proofs are sent to the corresponding author for approval, and possibly to supply the missing information. Authors should return these proofs promptly.
6. Once the author, shepherd, and Editor-in-Chief accepts the final version of the manuscript, it is published on the PULP website, uploaded to the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and Google Books, and disseminated on PULP’s social media platforms as an open-access publication.

PUBLISHING DOCTORAL THESES AS BOOKS

PULP will only consider doctoral theses once they have already been adapted to book form (e.g., ‘in this thesis I…’), etc. taken out and the structure adapted. A copy of the examiner’s reports needs to be submitted together with the manuscript and application. 

Read more about the Christof Heyns Memorial Thesis Award 

PUBLISHING COSTS

PULP does not require, but does prefer some contribution to the publishing costs involved, i.e., language and style-editing @ZAR95-00 per page. If authors and/or editors receive external funding for their publication, PULP is prepared to add the institution's logo somewhere on the published manuscript.

PLAGIARISM SCREENING PROCESS

1. PULP has a strict policy of screening manuscripts for plagiarism. PULP uses software to detect plagiarism prior to considering a submitted manuscript for review.
2. Manuscripts displaying plagiarism may be rejected on this ground alone.
3. Authors not adhering to PULP's policy that verbatim quotes must be clearly indicated as such may be requested to revise their articles in light of this requirement.
4. Any submission to PULP must be accompanied by a plagiarism declaration.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

1. Authors should declare if they consider that they may be reasonably perceived to have a direct or indirect conflict of interest in respect of the content of the manuscript they submit. The ground for the potential perception of a conflict of interest must be acknowledged in the manuscript. 
2. Editors must refrain from participating in the selection of chapters about which they may reasonably be perceived to have a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
3. External/peer reviewers are expected to refrain from participating in the selection of articles about which they may be reasonably perceived to have a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
4. Any editor, author, peer reviewer or PULP staff or editorial board member that declares an actual or potential, direct or indirect conflict of interest will not take part in the editorial process for that submission or other publication with respect to which they have declared such a direct or indirect conflict of interest.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) states in its Guidelines on Good Publication Practice (2003) as follows:

‘Conflicts of interest arise when authors, reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent and that may influence their judgments on what is published. They have been described as those which, when revealed later, would make a reasonable reader feel misled or deceived.’

Conflict of interest include any personal involvement in a case or other matter related to a manuscript under consideration for publication that may reasonably perceived to lead to bias, such as having a meaningful financial interest in a related matter, having received funding, having an interest in the outcome of a case being discussed in a manuscript, or having a personal relationship.

PULP’S PROCESS FOR HANDLING SUBMISSIONS FROM EDITORS, EMPLOYEES, OR MEMBERS OF THE EDITORIAL BOARD TO ENSURE UNBIASED REVIEW

PULP has adopted suitable policies for handling submissions from employees or members of the editorial board to ensure unbiased review and these are set out in writing below. The following steps are taken to ensure that submissions from PULP staff members or the editorial board receive an objective and unbiased evaluation:

1. A PULP staff or editorial board member is treated as any other author and must submit the PULP application form to the PULP Editorial Board for consideration.
2. The manuscript of a PULP staff or editorial board member must also comply with the PULP style guidelines, as any other application brought by a non-member.
3. PULP treats the PULP staff or editorial board member as any other author, with no access to the internal editorial process for that submission. 
4. PULP treats the PULP staff or editorial board member as any other author, and the submission is subject to PULP’s double-blind peer review policy, and the peer reviewers and author(s) remain anonymous.
5. The submission of a PULP staff or editorial board member is still subject to the preliminary screening by the PULP Editorial Board for preliminary approval before a shepherd is assigned to identify possible peer reviewers.
6. A PULP staff member or editorial member cannot shepherd their own submission.
7. The PULP editorial members maintain the same standards of professionalism and ethics, as with any other application from a non-member, when reviewing an application of a PULP staff or editorial board member.
8. An application made by a PULP staff or editorial board member is subject to the same application and internal screening processes and peer review processes as any other application brought by a non-member.
9. PULP staff or editorial board members must declare any actual or potential, direct or indirect conflict of interest.
10. A PULP staff or editorial board member that declares an actual or potential, direct or indirect conflict of interest will not take part in the editorial process for that submission or other publication with respect to which they have declared such a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
11. The PULP Editorial Board is committed to maintaining the objective, professional, ethical, and unbiased evaluation and review of applications from employees or members of the editorial board.

MISCONDUCT POLICY

1. Authors should observe high standards with respect to publication ethics as set out in the guidelines adopted by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines). 
2. Any cases of ethical misconduct will be treated very seriously and will be dealt with in accordance with these guidelines.
3. In the event that PULP is made aware of any allegation of research misconduct, PULP will investigate and act upon such allegations.
4. When information comes to the attention of PULP that requires the retraction or correction of a publication, the matter must be investigated and acted upon appropriately.

PULP is committed to publishing corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when so required in line with COPE guidelines.