Author Guidelines

Canadian Food Studies / La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation welcomes submissions that reflect and extend the conversations of the Canadian Association for Food Studies, in both English and French. Work will be published in either of these languages of submission.

Submissions received as of January 1st, 2017 will be subject to the new fee schedule found here. Payments will apply only to submissions that have been accepted for publication.

For all submissions, follow the on-screen instructions carefully, ensuring that all author names or other identifiers are removed from the body of uploaded files. (Click on the “Ensuring a Blind Review” link in the New Submissions window.)

Once manuscript files are uploaded, authors will be able to enter contact information and other metadata on the subsequent screens.

Abstract and title: As above, ensure that no author names or other identifiers are included in the abstract or title.

References: style must conform to APA style, including in-text references.

Illustrations: 150 dpi, maximum 800 pixels wide, uploaded as separate electronic files (e.g. TIFF or JPG), not embedded in text files. (Manuscripts should include clear indications of illustration locations.) Authors are responsible for obtaining, paying, and submitting all permissions to reproduce copyrighted material.

Digital works: see details below.

CFS editors will copyedit works to the extent that they deem necessary and that, in the opinion of the editors, does not change the original meaning or intent of the author. In the event that more substantive syntactical changes are required, consultation with the author will be sought.

SUBMISSION TYPES

Commentary (up to 1,500 words, not peer-reviewed): A viewpoint or opinion that is experiential or issue-based, on a food-related topic. Uses journalistic style. Responses to these commentaries are encouraged in subsequent issues.

Perspective (up to 3,000 words, double-blind peer-reviewed): An essay that presents a critical argument or reflection on a food-related topic. Examples include policy or ethical debates, current controversies (both theoretical and practical), interdisciplinary conundrums or synergies, and observational analyses. Journalistic style is encouraged. Responses to these perspectives are encouraged in subsequent issues.

Original Research Article (up to 8,000 words, double-blind peer-reviewed): An article that may be based on qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-method primary research data. Includes an introduction/background, methodology, results, discussion, and conclusion.

Review Article (up to 8,000 words, double-blind peer-reviewed): An article that provides an overall assessment of the state of knowledge on a specific topic, based on a review of recent, relevant research in that area.

Field Report or Narrative (up to 5,000 words, double-blind peer reviewed): A written work that reflects experience in the field from the perspective of practitioners, citizens, scholars, or others. Can take the form of case studies, reports, stories, or diaries. Note that “field” should be taken broadly, and includes any space (physical or virtual) or geographical area, e.g. urban, rural, and Northern environments; classrooms and other learning spaces; organizations and networks; public programs, business ventures, gardens, kitchens, etc.

Audio-Visual Work (up to 120 minutes for audio or video productions; up to 40 images for photographic, illustrative, or other non–time-based productions; double-blind peer-reviewed OR editorially reviewed, as deemed appropriate by the editorial team): A digital audio-visual form of scholarly output that represents food-related knowledge, representation or experience using non–text-only modes. Submissions should include a companion written piece (up to 1000 words) that contextualizes the work’s purpose, process of development, key contributors, and intended audience.

Art/Design Work (up to 20 images and/or 10 minutes of audio-visual documentation of graphic, three-dimensional, or performed works; up to 1,000 words of contextualization or documentation/discussion of the work; double-blind peer-reviewed OR editorially reviewed, as deemed appropriate by the editorial team): Represents food-related themes, studies, explorations, and other contexts in which art or design serves to bring forward cognitive/emotional/affective understanding of food knowledge.

Book/Art/Event Review (800 – 1,000 words, not peer-reviewed): A clear and concisely written text that includes the following information about the reviewed subject: a discussion of the targeted audience, author/artist/curator details and background (e.g., in the case of books, intended as undergraduate course material, based on a PhD dissertation, part of an edited series; in the case of art or events, produced in a research-creation context, presented within a festival, serving a retrospective or synthesis purpose; etc.); an overview of the main purpose, objectives, themes, issues, arguments; a critical perspective on the strengths and weaknesses of the book/art/event; when applicable, a discussion or assessment of the research methods, production practices, organizational processes employed.

A note about reviews: In general, CFS editors assign book/art/event reviews based on timeliness and relevance of the content to be reviewed. CFS will occasionally accept unsolicited book/art/event reviews for publication, provided the content and quality of the review meets editorial standards. Prospective submissions should be preceded by an email inquiry, in order to assess the appropriateness of the review and reviewer, and should include complete details of the content to be reviewed, the reviewer's qualifications, and a justification for the relevance of CFS as a publisher of the review. Additionally, CFS encourages publishers, artists, and event organizers to propose their works/events for review. Proposals should be submitted in the form of an email inquiry, including complete details of the content to be reviewed and any available promotional material. CFS will assign a reviewer based on its assessment of the content, and may request additional hard-copy materials to be delivered via post.

Community Review Article: A suitable Community Review manuscript addresses issues that are currently debated and for which interventions are imminent or underway; or it addresses topics that have received little attention to date and/or combines analytical frameworks in novel ways, potentially breaking new ground. It may have multiple authors who are well-networked across food studies, so that finding reviewers with no conflicts of interest represents a significant challenge. Consequently, a different review process is used. An article in this category is first published as a draft within a published issue, and open comments (50 – 1500 words) are invited from readers (the community) pertaining to specific aspects of the article. The manuscript should be sufficiently well written so that the emphasis of reviewers/commentors is on content rather than on structure or grammar. After 3 months, the article is revised, taking into account the readers' comments.

Transitions Streams (variable word counts, transparent [non-blind] peer-reviewed, moderated): These rolling, threaded, continuously submitted and reviewed texts or articles address a specific topic. Material will be moderated and posted by the stream’s editor. Transitions streams provide readers and writers with the chance to raise and debate questions within particular, salient themes. Transitions streams may be proposed for initiation, development, and termination by guest or CFS associate editors.