Author Guidelines
The BRJP is committed to publishing 2 issues per year in the second and fourth quarters.
The journal accepts submissions on a rolling basis. In the event of a Special Issue specific calls for submissions will be made via the BALEAP mailing list.
Authors are invited to make a submission to this journal. All submissions will be assessed by an editor to determine whether they meet the aims and scope of this journal. Those considered to be a good fit will be sent for peer review before determining whether they will be accepted or rejected. An editor may desk reject a submission if it does not meet minimum standards of academic rigour.
The peer review process will be open, meaning that the reviewers and authors will not be anonymised. The rationale for this is to encourage collegial and constructive feedback and for the author(s) to feel supported in the review process.
Before making a submission, authors are responsible for obtaining permission to publish any material included with the submission, such as photos, documents and datasets. All authors identified on the submission must consent to be identified as an author. Where appropriate, research should be approved by an appropriate ethics committee in accordance with the legal requirements of the study's country.
We welcome submissions in a variety of creative, multi-modal and traditional formats. The following list is intended to give a flavour of the types of submission that may be considered for publication; it is not exhaustive. Similarly, the word counts given should be regarded as helpful guides rather than strict limits.
Regardless of the length and format, editors are looking for submissions which are academically rigorous and which drive the field of EAP forwards.
Choosing a genre: which submission type fits your work?
BALEAP JRP welcomes a range of submission types to reflect the diverse ways in which knowledge is generated and shared in EAP. These include:
- Original Research Articles
- Critical Reflections on EAP Practice
- Policy/Institutional Perspectives
- EAP Materials / Events Reviews
Authors are encouraged to select the genre that best matches the primary contribution of their work, whether that is empirical evidence, a situated account of practice, reflective analysis, or a timely perspective on policy or professional issues.
As a general guide, Original Research Articles foreground research questions, methods, and findings; Case Studies foreground a specific intervention or initiative and what can be learned from it; and Critical Reflections foreground a pedagogical or professional dilemma explored through scholarship-informed analysis. The shorter genres (e.g. Work in Progress, Opinion, In Conversation) are particularly well-suited to timely discussion, emerging ideas, and field-facing dialogue.
If you are unsure which genre is most relevant to your work, you are welcome to contact the Editor for guidance prior to submission.
What our reviewers look for across all genres
While expectations vary by genre, our reviewers will generally look for the following qualities across submissions:
- Relevance to EAP: a clear connection to EAP teaching, assessment, scholarship, professional practice, or the institutional contexts in which EAP operates.
- A clear contribution: an explicit statement of what the piece adds (e.g. insight, evidence, argument, framework, implications, or questions that move the field forward).
- Criticality and reflection: engagement that goes beyond description, including analysis, evaluation, and attention to tensions, limitations, or alternative interpretations.
- Appropriate engagement with literature: use of relevant scholarship where appropriate and where it strengthens the argument, with the depth of engagement proportionate to the submission genre.
- Transparency and credibility: sufficient contextual and procedural detail to allow readers to understand how claims were developed, including methodological clarity where relevant.
- Implications for readers: a clear sense of what the work suggests for EAP practice, programme development, assessment, teacher education, policy, and/or future research.
- Clarity and accessibility: a coherent structure, professional academic tone, and writing that is accessible to both researchers and practitioners.
- Ethical awareness: attention to ethical considerations where appropriate (e.g. student data, institutional constraints, consent, anonymity, and responsible reporting).
Original Research Articles
4,000–8,000 words
Original Research Articles report empirical or conceptual research that advances the field of EAP through a clearly articulated research focus and robust scholarly engagement. Submissions should demonstrate methodological rigour and transparency, whether using qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, or corpus-based approaches. Authors should clearly situate the study within the relevant EAP literature and/or adjacent areas (e.g., English for Specific Purposes, Applied Linguistics, Language Assessment), outline the rationale for the research, and present findings or arguments that contribute to current debates in the field.
A strong submission will do more than report results: it will offer interpretation, critical discussion, and implications for EAP practice, policy, and/or future research. Where appropriate, authors should address ethical considerations, positionality, and limitations, and make clear what the work adds beyond its immediate context.
Best for: authors with a well-defined research question and a complete dataset or argument who want to make a rigorous contribution to EAP scholarship with clear implications for the field.
Case Studies
3,000–6,000 words
Case Studies provide scholarly, critically informed accounts of particular practices, interventions, programmes, or initiatives in EAP. They may focus on teaching, assessment, curriculum design, materials development, staff development, student support, or institutional implementation. Case Studies can be small- or large-scale, but they should be presented as more than descriptive reports.
Submissions should clearly outline the context, aims, and design of the work, and situate the case within relevant academic and professional literature. Authors should include a critical evaluation of outcomes, challenges, and unintended consequences, and should make explicit what the case offers to other EAP contexts. The emphasis is on transferable insight: what might others learn, adapt, or avoid?
Best for: practitioners or researchers who want to share a context-rich account of an intervention, programme, or initiative, with reflective evaluation and lessons useful for other EAP contexts.
Critical Reflections on EAP Practice
3,000–4,000 words
Critical Reflection pieces offer analytically rigorous, practitioner-facing reflections on EAP teaching, assessment, and professional practice. Submissions should go beyond narrative accounts of experience and instead demonstrate purposeful reflection that is grounded in professional knowledge, relevant scholarship, and/or practitioner-led enquiry.
Authors are encouraged to interrogate assumptions or values they hold and established approaches they use in EAP, and to explore tensions, dilemmas, or contradictions encountered in practice. A strong submission will show how reflection leads to insight, change, or re-conceptualisation, and will make clear how the discussion contributes to the development of EAP. These pieces may be theoretical, pedagogical, or methodological in orientation, but should always connect reflection to wider professional relevance.
Best for: practitioners who want to explore a pedagogical or assessment dilemma in depth, linking lived classroom experience to scholarship and drawing out transferable professional insight.
Archive Projects
2,000–4,000 words
The Archive Project provides a space to preserve and share valuable ideas, analyses, frameworks, or explorations that emerged from other projects but were not developed into a full publication (e.g., a thesis, article, report, or book chapter). These pieces may include conceptual “side findings,” theoretical models, methodological reflections, or practitioner-facing insights that are complete in themselves, even if they were originally secondary to a larger study.
Submissions should clearly explain the origin and context of the work, why it matters for EAP, and how it might support future research or practice. The emphasis is on dissemination of useful conceptual work that might otherwise remain inaccessible while maintaining scholarly clarity, coherence, and critical engagement.
Best for: authors who have a valuable conceptual framework, theoretical sub-finding, or practitioner-facing insight from a larger project (e.g., thesis or evaluation) that deserves dissemination in its own right.
Works in Progress
1,000–3,000 words
Work in Progress submissions are short reports on emerging projects, innovations, or research initiatives relevant to EAP. These may include early-stage interventions, pilot studies, preliminary data analysis, or exploratory work that is still developing. The purpose is to share work that is timely and of interest to the field, and to invite scholarly dialogue at an earlier point than is typical for full research articles.
Submissions should briefly outline the project’s context, aims, design, and rationale, and should clearly indicate what stage the work has reached. Authors should include early observations or tentative findings where available along with planned next steps and reflections on potential implications for EAP. These pieces should be written with clarity and scholarly caution, acknowledging uncertainty and limitations.
Best for: early-stage research, pilots, or developing initiatives where the key value is sharing an emerging direction, inviting dialogue, and making tentative insights available to the field sooner.
In Conversation Pieces
1,000–3,000 words
In Conversation submissions present structured, edited conversations with individuals whose work or perspectives are relevant to EAP (e.g., researchers, authors, materials developers, assessment specialists, academic developers, policy stakeholders, or experienced practitioners). These pieces should be more than informal interviews – they should be curated to illuminate timely issues, explore ideas in depth, and contribute meaningfully to professional and scholarly discussion.
Submissions should make clear why the conversation matters to EAP at the time and demonstrate engagement with theory, research, or professional debates. Authors may include brief framing commentary, references where appropriate, and reflective linking sections to help readers interpret the discussion. The aim is to make expert thinking accessible, usable, and intellectually generative for the field.
Best for: curated dialogues with individuals whose work shapes EAP practice or research, offering readers access to expert thinking in a structured, purposeful, and field-relevant way.
Policy/Institutional Perspectives
1,000–3,000 words
Policy/Institutional Perspectives examine the institutional, policy, and cultural conditions that shape EAP provision and practice. These pieces may analyse developments such as transnational education models, AI integration, widening participation, decolonisation, quality assurance, interdisciplinarity, or the positioning of EAP within universities and professional bodies.
Submissions should move beyond opinion alone and provide a grounded analysis, drawing on evidence such as institutional documentation, policy discourse, sector trends, professional experience, and/or relevant scholarship. Authors should articulate implications for EAP practitioners and leaders, and where appropriate offer recommendations, critical questions, or future directions. The emphasis is on clarity, relevance, and insight into how macro-level forces shape EAP work.
Best for: authors who want to analyse how institutional or sector-level forces shape EAP provision, positioning, and decision-making, and to articulate implications for practice and leadership.
Opinion Pieces
1,000–2,000 words
Opinion Pieces offer concise, thought-provoking arguments on issues relevant to EAP. Submissions should clearly articulate a position and provide a persuasive rationale grounded in evidence, scholarship, and/or well-justified professional experience. While these pieces may be more direct in voice than other genres, they should remain scholarly in tone and contribute constructively to debate in the field.
Strong Opinion Pieces identify a clear issue, engage with alternative perspectives fairly, and make explicit what the argument implies for EAP practice, research, policy, or professional development. The aim is not controversy for its own sake, but intellectually responsible provocation that animates readers to think differently.
Best for: concise, evidence-informed arguments that take a clear stance on a timely issue in EAP, aiming to provoke constructive debate rather than simply report practice.
EAP Materials / Events Reviews
1,000–2,000 words
Reviews provide critical evaluations of EAP-related materials (e.g., textbooks, digital resources, assessment tools, or teaching materials) or professional events (e.g., conferences, workshops, webinars, or presentations). Submissions should go beyond summary to offer a clear evaluative stance and a reasoned discussion of quality, relevance, and contribution.
A strong review will situate the material or event within current EAP concerns, identify its strengths and limitations, and reflect on how it might influence teaching, assessment, programme design, or research. Authors are encouraged to consider the intended audience, pedagogical assumptions, inclusivity, practicality, and alignment with contemporary developments in the field. Where relevant, reviewers may include brief examples to illustrate key points.
Best for: critical evaluations of resources or events that matter to EAP practitioners, offering a clear judgement of value, limitations, and practical relevance rather than a descriptive summary.
Before submitting, please follow the checklist below to prepare your submission.
