Author: Publisher

  • How to Publish with Evans Consulting Publications: The Complete Submission Guide

    How to Publish with Evans Consulting Publications: The Complete Submission Guide

    Every week, someone in Cameroon finishes a solid piece of research and stalls at the last step. Follow the exact path a manuscript takes through Evans Consulting Publications: from a finished Word document to a permanent, citable page with your name on it.

    Most researchers lose weeks emailing journals that never reply, or worse, pay inflated fees to sites that publish anything without reading it. At Evans Consulting Publications, a named editor reads your work and puts their own name next to the decision.

    Two different paths, depending on what you’re submitting

    Not every submission is the same kind of request, and ECP treats them differently on purpose.

    Free

    Already published elsewhere

    • Your paper already appeared in a journal, conference proceedings, or an institutional repository
    • ECP indexes it: full metadata, a citable page, and Google Scholar-compatible tags
    • No review, no fee. You’re archiving and improving discoverability, not seeking a new verdict
    • Keeps its original DOI/publisher credit; ECP never reissues a new DOI for reprinted work
    20,000 FCFA review fee

    New or unpublished manuscript

    • Work that hasn’t been published anywhere before
    • Goes to a named editor in your discipline for a real accept/revise/decline decision
    • The fee covers the editor’s review time and hosting once accepted. It does not guarantee acceptance
    • If accepted, it becomes ECP’s own original publication, eligible for a future ECP DOI once Crossref registration is complete
    Why the fee exists

    “Pay and we’ll publish anything” sites have burned a lot of researchers, so it’s fair to ask. The 20,000 FCFA fee applies only to new work and covers an editor’s actual reading time plus permanent hosting. It doesn’t buy acceptance. Already-published work is indexed at no cost, because there’s nothing left to review.

    What happens after you hit submit

    1
    Before you submit

    Prepare your manuscript

    Format it against ECP’s standard structure before you upload anything. A paper that already matches the required sections moves through review far faster than one an editor has to send back for restructuring. Download the free template covered below and build directly inside it.

    2
    Same day

    Submit through the intake form

    Head to Submit Your Work. No account or login required. You’ll indicate your discipline, upload the manuscript, and confirm the Contributor Agreement. The form saves as a draft automatically as you go, so a dropped connection doesn’t cost you the submission.

    3
    Within days

    A named editor takes it

    Your submission routes automatically to the editor covering your discipline, the same person credited publicly on the Editorial Board page, not an anonymous queue. They read the actual paper, not just the abstract.

    4
    The decision

    Accept, revise, or decline

    You get one of three honest outcomes. A revision request comes with specific notes on what to fix, not a boilerplate rejection. A decline names a reason too, because the editor attached to it has to stand behind the call.

    5
    Live, permanently

    Published with a citable page

    Accepted work gets a permanent URL, full bibliographic metadata, and the editor’s name on the record. The metadata follows the same tagging standard Google Scholar crawls, so readers can find the paper well beyond the ECP site itself.

    Formatting still matters before you submit

    The review itself judges your argument and your evidence, not your margins. A manuscript that already follows ECP’s required structure (the IMRaD sections, the metadata block, the declarations) still moves through an editor’s queue much faster than one that arrives as a plain, unstructured Word file. The full formatting rulebook, section by section, is covered in our companion guide to ECP’s document standards. Read it before you write a single section, not after.

    Questions authors ask

    Do I need to already know a discipline editor to submit?

    No. Submit through the intake form and it routes to the right editor automatically, based on the discipline you select. You don’t contact anyone directly first.

    How long does review take?

    It depends on the editor’s current queue and the length of your paper, but ECP is a small, editor-led operation rather than a mass-volume journal, so you’re looking at days and weeks, not the six-to-twelve-month waits common at larger outlets. If you haven’t heard back within a couple of weeks, contact us directly.

    Can I submit a thesis chapter or a conference paper?

    Yes, provided it stands on its own as a coherent piece of research with its own introduction, methodology, and conclusion, not a fragment that only makes sense next to the rest of the thesis. If it was already presented at a conference or published in proceedings, it falls under the free-indexing path, not new review.

    What if my paper gets declined?

    You keep the manuscript and the editor’s reasoning, and you’re free to revise it and resubmit, or to take it elsewhere. ECP doesn’t record a decline publicly against you.

    Is the DOI or ISSN real?

    ECP marks both fields “pending” on every article until they’re genuinely issued, and will never print a fabricated DOI or ISSN. That’s the kind of transparency that separates a credible independent publisher from a predatory one. Once registration completes, ECP updates published articles with the real numbers.

    Ready to submit your work?

    Have your manuscript formatted and ready, then send it through.

    Submit Your Work
    Read the formatting guide

    Further reading: the Directory of Open Access Journals’ guide to what makes a publication credible covers many of the same disclosure standards ECP already builds its process around.

  • ECP Manuscript Formatting Standards: The Complete Checklist (Free Template)

    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.

    Download the template (.docx)

    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:

    01

    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.

    02

    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.

    03

    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.

    04

    Results

    Report findings without interpreting them yet. Tie every major claim to a specific figure, table, or statistic, reported in APA style.

    05

    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.

    06

    Conclusion

    One or two short paragraphs summarizing the contribution. Introduce no new claims and no new citations here.

    07

    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.

    08

    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

    1

    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.

    2

    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.

    3

    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.

    4

    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.

    5

    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.

    Already published elsewhere?

    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.

    Download the template (.docx)
    Read the submission guide

    For the citation rules themselves, the official APA Style site is the authoritative reference beyond what’s summarized here.