Contributor guidelines

A question worth investigating.

Propose a bounded study of African authority, society, culture or historical change. Explain the evidence you can access and the debate your work will engage.

Send a research proposal

A proposal of approximately 300–500 words should state the main question, place and period, relevant scholarship, intended argument, available evidence, method and ethical considerations. A provisional argument is a proposition to investigate; it must be revised when the evidence requires it.

Include a short source list, language and access needs, any conflicts of interest and a realistic work plan. Do not send sensitive participant records through general email.

Email a research proposal

Selection criteria

A manageable question

Identify the place, period, actors and process. State the puzzle that existing explanations leave unresolved.

An evidenced argument

Explain how particular records support the answer. Test relevant alternative explanations and preserve material qualifications.

A contribution

Bring underused evidence, a neglected case or a defensible new interpretation into a recognised scholarly debate.

A logical structure

Develop the argument through the introduction, debate, method, evidence, discussion and conclusion. Answer the opening question.

Responsible review

Complete source and image checks, assess ethical risks and obtain human editorial review before journal publication. Editorial review is not advertised as academic peer review.

Article structure

Title and abstract. Name the case and analytical focus; summarise the question, evidence, argument and contribution.
Introduction. Develop the puzzle from the literature and documented circumstances. Define the scope and state the argument.
Debate and historiography. Engage relevant interpretations, including African scholarship, without treating a continent as a single case.
Sources, methods and ethics. Explain source selection, provenance, access, translation, comparison, positionality and participant protection.
Empirical analysis. Organise the records around the argument. Explain how their particular details support or qualify the answer.
Discussion and conclusion. Address competing explanations and answer the opening question. Identify the precise contribution.
References and image credits. Link accessible sources, give archive and page details, and retain dates, photographers, provenance and reuse permissions.

Article length follows the research question and available evidence. An initial working range is 2,000–5,000 words; a short contribution must still establish its argument. The journal is a developing editorial publication. No academic peer-review system, indexed-journal status or external accreditation is claimed.

Research and review

Work moves through proposal assessment, source assembly, analysis, drafting, verification and human editorial review. Original research stays private until that review is completed. An automated source check cannot approve it as human-reviewed.

Research progress can be reviewed at approximately fortnightly checkpoints when an author and editor agree a work plan. This is an editorial arrangement, not university supervision or a guaranteed publication date.

Photographs and evidence

Current-event reports need a recent, subject-matched photograph with verified rights. Historical research may use an accurately dated archival photograph, document or object when it is evidence of the period being discussed. Captions must distinguish the date of the object or event from the date of photography.

Maps and graphs must identify their datasets, methods and uncertainties. Permission is checked independently of the credibility of a text source.

Public learning and news

Learning resources explain documented concepts and debates in accessible language. Selected news establishes a current development with public significance for the journal’s focus. Neither format is presented as an original research finding. Existing articles remain accessible in their clearly labelled collections.

Editorial standards and research ethics