Submissions

What is an opinion piece? 

A Compass opinion piece is a short and thought-provoking piece of writing that states a position and draws on facts and evidence to support it. It can be a reply to a previous Compass publication. It reflects the opinion of the author(s) hence it should be written in the first person.   

The word count for an opinion piece in Compass can range from 1000 to 1500 words (excluding references). Opinion pieces must include a title, keywords, abstract, main body, conclusion and references – for further detail, please see below.  

What information should I include and how should the paper be structured?   

Title: indicates the focus of the piece 

Key words: provide three to five keywords, avoiding duplication of words that are in your title.  

Abstract: two to three sentences that summarise the argument.   

Main body: a clearly argued point of view on a specific topic. This should clearly state and justify the opinion of the author(s) in relation to the topic, rather than present a general discussion or review of literature. Evidence must be used to support the opinion expressed. This does not mean providing long lists of references but providing enough evidence to support and illustrate the author’s perspective. The argument should be balanced and acknowledge debate and context while expressing a clear point of view.   

Conclusion: brings together the key argument and its implications.  

References: a list of all sources cited in the paper. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist and Referencing Style Guide.  

Examples of Opinion Pieces:   

• Failing students need big data - https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/221/268   

• In praise of Yellow Pages - https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/75/145   

• When feedback holds us back - https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/139/223   

What is a case study?   

A Compass case study provides a focused analysis of an intervention or enhancement that was used to address a problem or challenge situated in a specific teaching context. It includes critical evaluation of the approach as well as description.   

The maximum word count for a case study in Compass is 3000 words (excluding references). Case studies may vary in the details of the structure however the author must provide: a title, keywords, abstract, introduction, literature review, method, analysis, evaluation and references – for further detail, please see below.  

What information should I include and how should the paper be structured?   

Title: indicates the focus of the study  

Key words: provide three to five keywords, avoiding duplication of words that are in your title.  

Abstract: a concise summary that accurately reflects what is in your case study, up to 200 words.  

Introduction: sets the scene clearly by providing the organisational and historical context and identifies the problem or challenge that was addressed.    

Literature Review: reviews the available sources with clear indication of how the case study builds on and links to what is already known and how it adds to the body of knowledge.    

Method: includes any relevant background information on your study site and participants so that the reader can understand the intervention or enhancement that was carried out and how you case study content. Explains clearly, step by step, how you carried out the intervention or enhancement and how you collected and analysed data to evaluate it. Please see the BERA ethical guidelines for conducting ethical pedagogic research and ensure your research has been approved by the respective Ethics Board of your institution.   

Analysis: describes and discusses the data that were collected, qualitative or quantitative.   

Evaluation: rounds up the case study providing implications and recommendations, evaluation, including discussion of generalisability, and final conclusions.   

References: a list of all sources cited in the paper. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist and Referencing Style Guide. 

For examples of published ‘Case Studies’, please browse the Journal’s archives.   

What is an article?   

Compass publishes two types of research article: an empirical article and a systematic review. All articles should address a specific research question and make an original contribution to knowledge. An empirical article reports on and evaluates an original study in which data were collected. It therefore contributes to knowledge by providing new evidence and its interpretation. A systematic review contributes by providing a detailed analysis of available evidence, leading to original findings and conclusions.   

The maximum word count for a research article in Compass is between 4000 and 6000 words (excluding references). All articles must include a title, keywords, abstract, introduction, method, results and discussion, conclusion and references – for further detail, please see below.  

What information should I include and how should the paper be structured? 

Title: indicates the focus of the study  

Key words: provide three to five keywords, avoiding duplication of words that are in your title.  

Abstract: a concise summary that accurately reflects what is in your article, up to 200 words.   

Introduction / Literature Review: provides the background to the problem, reviews the available evidence, identifies the gap, sets out the theoretical and methodological rationale for the study, and indicates the research question(s) addressed in the article.   

Methodology: a detailed description of how the research was carried out. Subsection headings are recommended to help organise the information. For an empirical study, this section should include the design, participants, data collection technique, method of analysis and show how the study followed ethical processes. Please see the BERA ethical guidelines for conducting ethical pedagogic research, and please make sure that your research has been approved by the respective Ethics Board of your institution. For a systematic review, you should provide details of how the available evidence was identified, selected and analysed.   

Results: presents the outcomes of the analysis in text commentary, supplemented by clearly labelled figures and table where these add value and do not duplicate information in the text.  

Discussion: the data should be analysed, evaluated and interpreted in relation to the theoretical and methodological issues raised in the introduction and literature review. Implications should be outlined, including consideration of the generalizability of the findings. For qualitative studies, the results and their interpretation may be combined and presented together in the discussion.  

Conclusion: a summary of the main findings and implications, indicating clearly the value that the article adds to the existing body of knowledge.  

References: a list of all sources cited in the paper. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist for Authors and Referencing Style Guide.  

An example of an article:   

A blended learning approach towards reducing the written communication gap: the role of Self-Regulated Learning dimensions  

What is a technology review?   

A Compass technology review provides an evaluation of a technology that is used for learning and teaching in HE. The focus is not on the technology itself but on its pedagogical application. A technology review can be written from the point of view of first-hand experience, or, you can gather the evidence from the literature. (NB where authors have collected sufficient data to evaluate the technology as used in their teaching context, they may consider writing a case study instead – please see separate author guidance on this category of submission.)   

The maximum word count for a technology review in Compass is 1000 words (excluding references).   

What information should I include and how should the paper be structured?   

Title: indicates the focus of the review   

Key words: provide three to five keywords, avoiding duplication of words that are in your title.  

Abstract: two to three sentences that sum up the review    

Introduction: a concise outline of the technology that is being reviewed. Provide sufficient technical information for the reader to understand how the technology works but avoid unnecessary detail. Keep the focus on application to pedagogy.  

Applications: explain how you have used this technology to support learning and teaching or, alternatively, draw on the literature to discuss how this technology can be used i.e. explore the pedagogical potential of a technological tool.   

Evaluation: Outline advantages and disadvantages of this technology from your own experience/point of view and/or from the literature.    

Conclusions: provide a roundup of your review through including key evaluation points, implications, and, if you are writing from the point of view of first-hand experience, your plans for using this technology in your teaching practice.   

References: list all sources cited in the paper. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist and Referencing Style Guide. 

For examples of published Technology Reviews, please browse the Journal’s archives or see:  

• Wearable technology in academia: the use of Google Glass in the life sciences  https://journals.gre.ac.uk/index.php/compass/article/view/164 

What is a book review?   

A Compass book review introduces and evaluates a published book on learning and teaching in HE.   

The word count for a book review in Compass is 1000 words (excluding references). Book reviews must include: details of the publication being reviewed, a clear structure (e.g. introduction, main body and conclusion) and references, if applicable.   

What information should I include and how should the paper be structured?   

Details of the publication being reviewed: the title, author and publication details of the book  

A clear structure, for example:   

Opening paragraphs should be used to draw the reader in. Consider if there a “hot topic” that the book can be related to, to attract interest in your review. Define any key terms that are needed to understand the review.  

Main body: choose two or three chapter to focus on, do not attempt to comment on every chapter in turn. Help the reader to understand the content, purpose and message of the book. Use a small number of short quotes to illustrate your points. Comment on the argument made by the author – to what extent was it persuasive? Are there examples from your practice that you can discuss in relation to an idea in the book? Ensure that the review is balanced and fair. 

Conclusion, what are the main strengths (and limitations), in your opinion, and why? Who would you recommend the book to and why?   

References: if applicable, list all sources cited in the paper. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist and Referencing Style Guide. 

What is an anthology?  

A Compass anthology is a collaborative submission of papers on a specific theme in learning and teaching in HE. It involves three or more authors and consists of a collection of three original papers and a commentary.   

One of the papers should be a case study or research article, the others can be any combination of two of the following: opinion piece, case study and/or technology review. For example, if you have selected a research article as one of the papers, you may include a case study as a second paper, plus an opinion piece or a technology review. The standard Compass author guidance, including the word count, applies for each of these three papers.   

How to submit an anthology to Compass:  

The lead author will need to first submit a proposal to the Compass Editor at r.george@gre.ac.uk to be reviewed. The word count for the proposal is 500-750 words and it should include:   

• the central themes that will be addressed throughout the collection,   

• how these themes are explored in each paper  

• why this anthology is important and relevant in the context of Higher Education today  

After reviewing the proposal, we will inform you about the outcome, i.e., if this is an appropriate piece of work for this category and/or whether revisions are required with relevant feedback.  

What information should I include in the anthology and how should it be structured?  

Title: indicates the focus of the anthology   

Key words: provide three to five keywords, avoiding duplication of words that are in your title.  

Abstract: a concise summary that accurately reflects what is discussed in your anthology (up to 200 words)  

Introduction (500-700 words): provides the background of the problem, presents and contextualises the connective theme of the three papers, explains why this anthology is important, i.e. the rationale for this theme in the current context of HE, sets out the aims and intended outcomes of the anthology, and identifies how the three papers are interconnected and how they will be explored, supported by references to the literature.   

Three papers: Inclusion of the three papers, following the separate Author Guidelines of each type of paper.  The three papers must have a connective theme throughout which has been articulated in the introduction and further discussed in the commentary.   

Commentary (500-700 words): The commentary is a critical reflective discussion of the three papers, based on the connecting theme. It critically reflects on the connective elements of the three pieces and on their different perspectives. It initiates further debate and dialogue around the theme.   

Conclusion (500 words): Sums up the key arguments and identifies implications for policy and practice and areas for future research.  

References: a list of all sources cited in the introduction, commentary and conclusion. Do not include any additional readings or resources. The references must be presented in the required format for Compass. Please follow the guidelines in the Submission Preparation Checklist and Referencing Style Guide. 

Referencing style guide 

Reference list – essentially, the Harvard method   

Your watchwords should be ‘discoverability’ and ‘consistency’. Your list should make every reference easy for the reader to follow up, so double-check 1) that every journal article url works and that it lands on the cited pages, not a home page, and 2) that you have provided the ISBN for every printed book. Please always provide a url for doi numbers. Every reference using a url must have an access date in the format shown below and every reference must be consistent in layout and punctuation with the examples shown below.  

Put the whole list in alphabetical order by author’s name and then by date (earliest first). Please provide the list without any digital formatting or indentation and with a space between each reference.   

• If more than one item has been published during a specific year, indicate by letter (1995a, 1995b,1995c etc.).  

• Take information from the title page of a printed publication and not from the front cover.   

• Include the elements of layout and punctuation precisely as given in the examples below.   

• The title of a publication should be:  

in italics for an edited book;   

not in italics but inside a single set of inverted commas for a journal article (see below). Please always place a full stop inside the inverted commas, after the title.  

Examples  

A book by a single author:  

Barnett, R. (1997) Higher education: A critical business. Buckingham: Open University Press. ISBN: 0335197035  

(No full stop after the number.)  

A book by two authors:  

Searle, J. and Chomsky, N. (1997) The meaning of sense: critique and arguments. 105th edn. London: Wybourn. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX  

Please note the format for any publication by several authors:  

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. and Moore-Cherry, N. (2016)  

(Note that there is no comma before the ‘and’.)  

A book by a corporate author (e.g. a government department or other organisation):   

Nursing and Midwifery Council (2003) Patient-centred care: a NMC position statement on patient involvement. London: Nursing and Midwifery Council. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX  

An edited book:  

Baumeister, R. (ed.) (1999) The self in Social Psychology: Key readings in social psychology. Hove: Taylor and Francis. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX  

(Note the provision of publisher location.)  

A chapter in a book:  

Burnard, P. (1997) ‘The self and self-awareness.’ In: Strugnell, C., Renzaho, A., Ridley, K. and Burns, C. (eds.) The Self in Society. London: Stanley Thornes, 17-28. ISBN: XXXXXXXXXXX  

An article in a journal:  

Baillie, C., Bowden, J.A. and Meyer, J.H.F. (2013) ‘Threshold capabilities: threshold concepts and knowledge capability linked through variation theory.’ Higher Education, 65(2), 227-246. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9540-5 (Accessed: 3 February 2023).  

Please always provide the digital source for a journal article, precisely as above, with curved brackets, and use the same spacing and punctuation in every journal reference. The journal’s title must be in full, not abbreviated, and in italics.  

Please note that every online journal reference must have an access date in the above format.  

Please note the format for a journal publication by several authors:   

Bovill, C., Cook-Sather, A., Felten, P., Millard, L. and Moore-Cherry, N. (2016)  

Note that there is no comma before the ‘and’.  

Here’s another example of a journal article reference, since these seem to present some challenge in terms of consistency:  

Allan, H.T., O'Driscoll, M., Simpson, V. and Shawe, J. (2013) ‘Teachers' views of using e-learning for non-traditional students in higher education across three disciplines at a time of massification and increased diversity in higher education.’ Nurse Education Today, 33(9), 1068-1073. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22551700/ (Accessed: 27 January 2023).  

An article in a newspaper:   

Sabo, M. (2003) ‘Fear of gun crime rising.’ Guardian, 26 October 2003, 10.   

If no author name is provided then the publisher should be used instead:   

Guardian (2003) ‘Public health in decline.’ Guardian, 24 October 2003, 11.   

Please always provide the digital source for a newspaper article, precisely as follows, with curved brackets:  

Available at: url (Accessed: 30 November 2021).  

A digital book or similar:  

Panard, D. (2006) Equality and human rights. Available at: url (Accessed: 15 May 2020).  

A television programme:   

Julie through the looking glass. (2012). BBC 2, 4 July.   

A video:  

12 Angry Men. (1957) Directed by Sidney Lumet. Hollywood: MGM Entertainment.  

CD ROMS:  

Institute of Cancer Research (2000) A breath of fresh air: an interactive guide to managing breathlessness in patients with lung cancer. [CD Rom]. Sutton: Institute of Cancer Research.   

Government publications   

• White Papers contain statements of Government policy:  

Department for Education and Skills (2002) 14-19 next steps: the future. Cm.3390. London: Stationery Office   

• Green Papers put forward proposals for consideration and public discussion:  

Department for Education and Skills (2003) Extending Opportunities: raising standards. Cm 3854. London: Stationery Office.   

(They are cited in the same way.)  

• An Act of Parliament   

Great Britain. Education Act 2002: Elizabeth II. Chapter 25. London: The Stationery Office.