Submission Information

Thank you for your interest in submitting your research to The ROSA Journal. Here you will find the manuscript submission guidelines for the journal. These guidelines are still being edited and will continue to be updated as the journal develops. Should you have any questions, please contact us.

The Basics

  • All manuscripts submitted should not have been published elsewhere,
  • Be written in English,
  • Fit within the scope of the journal:
    • crypto research in a broad sense, including social, technical and economic studies,
    • quantitative methods related to social science such as scientometrics, big data, social networks and statistical testing, and
    • research-based commentary on contemporary social, political and cultural issues.
  • Manuscripts can be of different lengths and focus:
    • research articles include a discussion of a manuscript’s theoretical relevance in addition to making an original scientific contribution (2,500 to 10,000 words),
    • research notes provide early empirical findings and updates from ongoing or exploratory research (1,000-5,000 words), and
    • research commentaries offer analysis of current issues based on scientific research and empirical studies (800-2,000 words).
  • We strive to publish all manuscripts within two months.

Editorial Process: Single Blind Peer-Review

The journal follows a single-blind reviewing process. The author will be known to the reviewer, but the reviewer will remain anonymous to the author.

Journal Login: MetaMask

To submit a manuscript, authors can register with their e-mail address or cryptowallet, such as MetaMask. To learn more about the login options, please visit the Login Tutorial.

Manuscript Submission: Markdown

To streamline the production process of the journal, authors must submit manuscripts in Markdown format.

You can learn more about Markdown from the journal’s own Markdown Example page and the Markdown guide.

If you are writing in Google Docs, it is possible to convert your work to Markdown with a plugin. However, please check that graphics and references are correctly included.

For a step-by-step guide on how to submit a manuscript using Markdown, please see our Markdown Tutorial (soon!).

Manuscript Format

Manuscripts should contain a concise and informative title.

Select the manuscript category as a research article, research note or research commentary.

Author information, including affiliation and e-mail addresses of the corresponding author(s) should be included, along with their ORCID. However, it is possible to submit research anonymously under a pseudonym. For anonymous submissions, please provide the editors with an e-mail address, but this e-mail address will not be published.

An abstract of 150 to 250 words, should not contain any undefined abbreviations or unspecified references.

4 to 6 keywords should be provided for indexing purposes and be added as tags to the manuscript.

Relevant declarations, such as Competing Interests and Author Contributions, should be provided.

Abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently throughout the text.

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list. They should not consist solely of a reference citation, and they should never include the bibliographic details of a reference. They should also not contain any figures or tables.

Acknowledgments of people, grants, funds, etc. should be placed in a separate section at the beginning of the manuscript. The names of funding organizations should be written in full.

References should be included in the Markdown manuscript using the APA citation format.

Figures should be included in the Markdown manuscript and uploaded to the journal system by pasting them into the manuscript.


The ROSA Journal is committed to upholding the integrity of the scientific record. The journal will follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on how to deal with potential acts of misconduct.

Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and may be unaware of their ethical obligations. The COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process. It is hoped they will provide helpful guidance to researchers, be a reference for journals and editors in guiding their reviewers, and act as an educational resource for institutions in training their students and researchers.

Peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

On being approached to review Peer reviewers should:

  • respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  • declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
  • only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
  • review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
  • ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
  • not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
  • decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
  • decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
  • decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
  • decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g. it uses open review and releases the reviewers’ names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal’s review policies.

Post-review, peer reviewers should:

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
  • respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
  • contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.

To submit a manuscript, please login to the journal now.