Submissions should be written with clarity and grace and must conform to pertinent, accepted citation and style guidelines. Authors should adhere to English (American or British) grammar, spelling, and punctuation. All contributions must be submitted electronically as a Word file (.doc or .docx), a Rich Text Format file (.rtf), or in another MS Word-compatible configuration.

Please use as little formatting as possible—endnotes are acceptable, but please do not include page numbers, use non-standard fonts, pre-set tabs, etc. Please provide English translations for any text, passages, quotations, titles, etc., in another language.  For articles featuring images, authors must seek reproduction permissions prior to publication.  Any images must be high resolution at 300 dpi.


Submitting an Abstract

Please use the Abstract Submission Form. You may copy and paste the form in a Word document and email the completed form to

The abstract is expected to include brief statement of your hypothesis, a discussion of the theoretical background, description of your methodology, summation of the findings or argument to be discussed in the paper, and an explanation of how your work contributes to the field. (Here is a helpful guide for writing an effective abstract.)

Remember that an abstract is not something to be dashed off as a formality. It is the only evidence of your ability to organize your thoughts, state your premise convincingly, and show that you will deliver an interesting paper; an unsatisfactory abstract will most often lead to a summary rejection. Your abstract should therefore reflect the qualities expected in your paper. 

A concise and precise abstract is more likely to be accepted than a wordy and rambling submission.

Abstract Submission Form.

Submitting a Full Manuscript

If your abstract is accepted, you will be asked to submit a full manuscript (on average, 3,000–7,000 words). The manuscript should be submitted as a Word document (.doc) to

The Filename should include your personal details, according to the following format: NAME_BRIEF TITLE_TIS_MS.  For example:  SMITH_THE MEANING OF LIFE_TIS_MS.


Your paper should include a bibliography of “Works Cited.” You may add an additional list of non-cited sources under “Further Reading.”

We will accept any logical style guide and referencing system (MLA, Harvard, Chicago, etc.) so long as it is internally consistent within your own document. Referencing must be full and consistent.

If you use referencing software, please ensure that your in-text references and/or footnotes, and your list of works cited, are complete, and that you have converted your in-text bibliography to static text before sending.


Please ensure that you have secured permissions for images that are integral to your paper and which you would like to include. Do not assume that anything downloaded from the Internet is free of copyright! Images must be fully referenced, with copyright declaration and permissions cited, e.g., “© XXX date. Reproduced with permission.”

Statement of authorship

All authors of manuscripts accepted for publication will be required to sign a Statement of Authorship. In signing this statement, the author asserts that

  • the article is entirely the work of the named author(s).
  • the article has not been published elsewhere.
  • the article has not been submitted for publication elsewhere.


The National Coalition of Independent Scholars reviews books by and about or of interest to independent scholars.  The Book Review Editor can be contacted on

Books by NCIS Members:

Email the NCIS Book Review Editor to request the postal address to which the review copy should be sent. If you have self-published your book, send any needed contact and purchase information along with the book.

Books by Non-NCIS Members:

The author(s) of these books generally (see below) should be independent scholars, or the books should have substantial content of direct relevance to independent scholarship.

NCIS Members should ask the Book Review Editor about books they would like to review, or if they think a review by another qualified NCIS Member would be of critical interest to NCIS Members. The Review Editor will then try to obtain a review copy from the publisher. Even though we try to focus on independent scholarship, an NCIS Member may ask the Review Editor for review on any book in any discipline with any focus.

Books Written by NCIS Affiliates:

Members of NCIS Affiliates may submit books they have authored for review even if they are not NCIS members. The Review Editor will select a reviewer from the NCIS database.

Interested in reviewing a book? Contact


Each article and book review published in TIS has a stable URL and should be cited in the following format:

  • Article:
  • Colt, Monica. “Identity redefinition through the overcoming of the cultural boundaries in M.G. Vassanji’s The Magic of Saida.” The Independent Scholar Vol. 3 (July 2017): 3-12.
  • Book review:
  • Newman, Serena. [Review of The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience, by Alan E Johnson.] The Independent Scholar Vol. 3 (July 2017): 70-71.

Conflict of Interest

To prevent ambiguity, authors also are required to state whether there is, or is not, a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest exists when an author has financial or personal relationships that could inappropriately bias or compromise their scholarship.


Publication in TIS does not preclude submission of similar material to a field-specific professional journal. Any work rewritten for a specialist publication will necessarily have a different approach, and the editors expect that the resulting paper will be substantially different from that which will appear in the interdisciplinary medium of TIS.


Please ensure you observe all deadlines, to ensure timely publication. Reviewers are likewise committed to sending their comments on schedule, and it is important that you respond quickly with any revisions.

If you have any queries, do feel free to contact the Editor at



Please ensure you observe all deadlines, to ensure timely publication. Reviewers are likewise committed to sending their comments on schedule, and it is important that you respond quickly with any revisions.

If you have any queries, do feel free to contact the Editor at


1) Soundness

Clarity of argument The reviewers look for a clear argument, so you should state the aim of the research, outline the seminal issues involved, and offer valid conclusions.

SUGGESTIONS: The writing should be scholarly rather than popular in tone, yet clarity should be achieved without being overly burdened by academic buzzwords and clichés. Many scholars outside of your discipline will be interested in your writing.

Scholarly methodology Your paper should include the theoretical background where relevant, and any ethical considerations in data collection. Researcher reflexivity (the ways in which your own background, ethnicity, etc., may affect your primary data, such as information provided by people you use as research subjects, or your own interpretation of the data) also should be recognized and acknowledged. For papers in disciplines that do not necessarily support this format (e.g., curating) manuscripts will be judged on a case-by-case basis, but it is expected that these will still demonstrate high standards of professionalism.

2) Significance

You will need to show the intellectual significance of your paper, by including a brief overview of the field, or a concise literature review, so that your research can be situated by non-specialists in your field. You should also spell out the contribution made to the field by your paper.

3) Originality

It is expected that your work will be original rather than derivative. It will draw on existing literature and refer to work in the same field, but should make an original contribution to the existing body of scholarship. This original contribution should be made evident.


1) Soundness

  • Is the manuscript well organized, with clear aims, argument and conclusions?
  • Is the paper well written in terms of the quality of English and academic style?
  • Are the sources appropriate?
  • Are the conclusions justified?

2) Significance

  • Does this manuscript have appeal to a multi-disciplinary audience?
  • Does its scope and importance justify its publication in the TIS rather than in a specialized journal?

3) Originality

  • How original is the manuscript’s contribution to its field? In what way(s) is it original?

General Instructions:

Reviewers are reminded that their comments should at all times be objective, respectful and polite. Reviews should be submitted promptly. At the end of the review, classify the manuscript under one of the following four categories:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject



General Editor
Shelby Shapiro, Ph.D., M.A.

Humanities Editor

Amanda Haste, Ph.D., M.A., LGSM, ALCM, Dip. Trans. IoLET, FISM, MCIL.

STEM Editor

Joan Cunningham, Ph.D.,


  • Tula Connell, Ph.D. 
  • Dorothy Della Noce, J.D., Ph.D. 
  • Laurence Schiller, Ph.D. 
  • Patricia Silver, Ph.D.
  • Tim R. Woolley, Ph.D.

Contact us

National Coalition of Independent Scholars