We publish work that tells an educator, researcher, or policymaker outside your own institution something they can use. Before you submit, be able to answer each of these in one sentence.

If any of the three is hard to answer, the manuscript is not ready. No amount of formatting will fix that.

The grounds for returning a manuscript without review are set out in Policies §05. Nothing below adds to that list; these are the forms those grounds most often take in submissions we receive.

Word counts exclude the abstract, tables, and references. They are limits, not targets: a 4,200-word article that answers its question is stronger than a 7,000-word one that repeats itself.

Download the JPtpp article template, write your manuscript inside it, and upload it as a single Microsoft Word file (.docx). Name it with the surname of the corresponding author and a short title, for example Sari_MobileLearningWriting.docx. Do not upload a PDF.

The Editorial Office separates Part A from Part B before review, so reviewers never see who you are. This only works if Part B is genuinely anonymous when it arrives — see below.

Optional but recommended: figures as separate high-resolution files (Figure1.png), the similarity report, instruments and datasets in a repository, and supplementary appendices. These are uploaded alongside the manuscript.

Anything you want the editor to know that does not belong in the article — that the manuscript draws on a dataset you have published from before, that you would prefer we avoid a particular reviewer and why, or a request for a fee waiver — goes in the comments box on the submission form. A separate cover letter is not required.

Deleting the names from the first page of Part B is not enough:

Headings are never numbered in JPtpp. Use no more than three heading levels.

Figures are for a 7,000-word research article; scale them proportionally for other types.

Title (15 words or fewer): name the construct(s), the population, and the design or contribution. Avoid "A Study of…", "An Analysis of…", question marks, and abbreviations.

Abstract (100–150 words for every article type, one paragraph, no citations, no abbreviations, no sub-headings): the problem and why it matters (1 sentence) → the aim or research question (1) → design, participants with n, setting, and instruments (1–2) → the main findings with the actual numbers (2–3) → what they mean (1). That is six to eight sentences. The limit is tight on purpose: it forces you to report the finding rather than describe the study. An abstract without numbers reads as an abstract without findings.

Keywords (3–6, semicolon-separated, alphabetical): choose terms not already in the title, so the article is discoverable through more search paths.

Four moves, in order:

The test is replicability: another researcher must be able to repeat your study from this section alone. Use these sub-headings and delete what does not apply.

Findings only: no interpretation, no citations, no repetition of the method. Follow the order of the research questions; open each subsection by answering its question in one plain sentence, then give the evidence. Never present the same number twice, once in a table and again in the text — the text points out the pattern the table shows.

Qualitative findings. Organise by theme, not by participant. Name each theme so the name carries meaning, define it, support it with one or two short verbatim quotations attributed to anonymised participants (Teacher 4, School B), and state how many participants contributed to it.

The section that decides acceptance. The most common reason for rejection after review is a discussion that restates the results. Four moves:

One or two paragraphs. No sub-headings, no citations, no new data, no numbered list of "suggestions". Answer the research questions, state the contribution, and end with the single most important implication.

Name the limitations that genuinely constrain the interpretation of your findings and say what each one means for the reader's confidence in your conclusions. Then propose studies that follow directly from those limitations. "The sample was small" is not a limitation until you say what the small sample prevents you from claiming.

The composition requirements below are set in Policies §04. This section explains how to meet them.

Worked reference examples for fourteen source types are provided in the article template.

Model sentences for each declaration are in the article template. The requirements themselves come from the Policies, cited in the right-hand column.

The full rules are in the Policies and the Publication Ethics Statement. What follows is what most often decides a manuscript's fate at screening.

All periods below are working days.

Stages 1 to 3 add up to 18–25 working days from submission to first decision, roughly four to five working weeks. Submission to acceptance is 38–56 working days depending on the revision requested, and submission to publication 48–71 working days — roughly ten to fourteen calendar weeks. We report against these targets, and you may ask the Editorial Office for a status update once a stage has elapsed.

Submit a separate response letter as a three-column table: Reviewer comment · What we changed · Where (page and line). Then:

A major revision is not a rejection. Roughly 80% of manuscripts that reach revision are eventually published.