ECP Manuscript Formatting Standards: The Complete Checklist (Free Template)
Two papers can say the same thing and get opposite outcomes, just because one of them is formatted like it belongs in a serious publication and the other looks like a class assignment. Evans Consulting Publications requires this exact structure, section by section, and the free template below already has it built in.
None of this is arbitrary. Every requirement below exists because it’s what makes a paper indexable by Google Scholar, defensible to a skeptical reader, and eligible for a real DOI once one is issued. Build to this standard from your first draft and an editor spends their time evaluating your argument instead of untangling your structure.
Skip the guesswork
Download the exact Word template ECP uses. Masthead, metadata table, and every section pre-built.
The required structure, section by section
ECP follows IMRaD, the structure used across business, management, and social-science research worldwide: Introduction, Methodology, Results, and Discussion, bracketed by an abstract at the front and declarations and references at the back. Eight sections in total:
Introduction
Move from the broad significance of the topic to the specific gap your paper fills, within the first two paragraphs. Lean on sources from the last three to five years.
Literature Review
Organize by theme, not as a chronological list of “Author A found X, Author B found Y.” End with an explicit, quotable statement of the gap.
Methodology
State your sample, sampling method, and sample size, and justify each one. Name your instruments with source citations, and your software with version numbers for any quantitative work.
Results
Report findings without interpreting them yet. Tie every major claim to a specific figure, table, or statistic, reported in APA style.
Discussion
This is where interpretation belongs, not in Results. State the theoretical or policy implications explicitly, and address limitations by name rather than with a generic disclaimer.
Conclusion
One or two short paragraphs summarizing the contribution. Introduce no new claims and no new citations here.
Declarations
Five required statements: ethics approval, competing interests, author contributions, funding, and data availability. “Not applicable” or “none to declare” is a valid answer, but the line has to exist.
References
APA 7th edition, alphabetized, with each source’s own DOI included where one exists.
Formatting requirements at a glance
| Element | Requirement |
|---|---|
| Citation style | APA 7th edition throughout, in-text and in the reference list |
| Abstract length | 150-250 words, covering problem, method, key result, and significance, in that order |
| Keywords | 4-5 keywords, listed directly beneath the abstract |
| Author contributions | Stated per author, ideally using the CRediT taxonomy |
| Metadata block | Article type, discipline, volume/issue, and received/accepted/published dates on page 1 |
| DOI & ISSN fields | Marked “pending” until genuinely issued. Never a placeholder number that looks real |
| File format | Word (.docx) at submission; ECP converts to PDF after the editor’s sign-off |
| Suggested citation line | Included at the end of the reference list, ready to complete once the article is published |
The five reasons manuscripts get sent back
A results section that argues
Findings and interpretation are two different sections. If a sentence in Results starts explaining why something happened, it belongs in Discussion.
A literature review that lists
A paragraph-by-paragraph summary of ten different studies isn’t a review. Group sources by theme and argument instead of by author.
Missing declarations
Every submission needs all five: ethics, competing interests, contributions, funding, data availability. A skipped line is the single most common reason editors return a manuscript unread.
References that aren’t APA 7
Mixed citation styles, missing DOIs, or non-alphabetized lists all slow an editor down and read as carelessness before they’ve even reached your argument.
An abstract that buries the result
State the actual finding in the abstract. “This study explores the relationship between X and Y” tells a reader nothing they didn’t already know from your title.
None of the formatting requirements above apply if you’re indexing work that’s already published in another journal or proceedings. That path is about discoverability, not review, so ECP hosts it as it already exists. This formatting standard applies specifically to new, unpublished manuscripts going through named-editor review.
Common questions on formatting
Do I have to use the ECP template, or can I format my own document?
The template isn’t mandatory, but it’s the fastest route through review, since it already has every required section and field built in. If you format your own document, it still needs to match the same eight-section structure and the metadata block described above.
What if a section genuinely doesn’t apply to my study?
State that directly rather than deleting the section. A qualitative study with no numerical results still needs a Results section; it just reports themes instead of statistics.
Can I use a citation style other than APA 7?
No. APA 7 is the standard across every discipline ECP covers, which keeps references consistent and machine-readable for indexing.
Build your paper on the real template
Every section, every field, already in place.
For the citation rules themselves, the official APA Style site is the authoritative reference beyond what’s summarized here.