Contents:

• Fulltext Paper Submission
• How to Prepare your Paper
• Reviewer Guidelines

Fulltext Paper Submission
You are required to submit your fulltext paper through the AbstractAgent System: http://www.abstractagent.com/2012wcpe/
The Deadline for submissions is November 2, 2012
Manuscripts will be reviewed by the members of the International Scientific Committee and invited experts on other subjects. The review process will be completed by January 30, 2013. The guidelines given to referees are at the bottom of this page.

How to Prepare your Paper
The paper should include a title, author(s), the institution(s), and e-mail address of the corresponding author; an abstract, text, and references. The length of the manuscript should be between 3000 and 6000 words.
While writing your manuscript , please follow the APA style (6th edition of the APA Publication Manual ).
Please note that your paper has to be based on your WCPE 2012 presentation and should not significantly deviate from the published abstract.

Writing your paper
If you are reporting a study presenting empirical research, then it should contain more or less the following five sections:
1. Introduction (theoretical framework, literature, purpose, problem, research questions, limitations, etc.);
2. Method(s);
3. Data and findings;
4. Discussion and Conclusions
5. Acknowledgement

The results should be clear and author interpretations/inferences/assertions should be highlighted as they are. Whenever possible suggestions for further studies and future researchers should be given at the end.
If the paper presents theoretical research, the argumentation must be clear and easy to follow, and conclusions must follow clearly from the arguments that are presented. Although these guidelines are intended for empirical reports, many of the ideas can also be followed in theoretical ones. It is especially important to present a clear formulation of the purpose of the paper, in which the research aims are stated and the study is placed in context with the broader field of research, with references to relevant research literature. Discussion, conclusions and/or implications must be clearly connected with the aims and the results (and/or the argumentation) presented in the study. Results must be discussed in light of relevant literature.
If your presentation was on demostrations/laboratory activities and the like, please try to give a literature that shows the necessity of your work and the quality of your planned activities. This requires going beyond just reporting cookbook style activity lists and including scholarship and wisdom in the manuscript. The papers published in a recent issue of the EURASIA Journal can foster your thinking: http://www.ejmste.com/v8n1/main.html

Abstract
The abstract is a single paragraph that uses 200-300 words to describe your topic, your method, your results and the conclusion you came to in your “Discussion” section. It should be viewed as a separate summary of your paper, not as a component of your paper. The abstract should include one to two sentences about the following four themes:

1. the general topic of your paper and the topic's importance;
2. method, primary procedure and techniques;
3. results or summary of relationships;
4. discussion or summary of primary conclusions and possible implications.

1. Introduction
The introduction should present the topic of the paper, review relevant theories and research and provide a brief review of the research design that will follow, including research questions or hypotheses. You may divide the introduction into sections with descriptive headlines.
Typically an introduction has three primary components.

1. problem statement: describe the topic of interest and state briefly why investigating this topic is important (i.e., its significance for theory or practice).
2. literature review: review some relevant theories (can be found in textbooks, handbooks and international journals) and/or earlier research findings that relate to your topic.
3. statement of intentions: briefly describe your experiment, relating it to your literature review. Briefly state your research questions or hypotheses.

2. Method(s)
The Method section should describe the procedure in detail sufficient to allow those who wish to replicate the method to do so. This section should include a description of the participants (teaching experiment(s) ...), and the research methods used.
Report the number of participants, age, gender and important demographics that relate to the experiment. Describe the research method (procedure) so that a reader could precisely replicate the study or experiment. You may choose to put a copy of the questionnaire or interview protocol in an appendix. Illustrations of apparatus or settings should be presented as figures (see on next chapter for the presentation of figures). Each figure should be referred to using a number.

3. Data and findings
In this section, present the data. In quantitative study just lay out data and results without interpretation. The only thing that should be described is the results, including descriptions of graphs of data obtained. Interpretation of your results and opinions on how they relate to your research questions or hypotheses should be placed in the discussion section.
In the case of a qualitative study, make sure that you quote your data and convince the reader of your interpretations.
Tables should be made as described in the examples below.
Table 1. Evaluation of the learning materials teachers used to teach the basics of electronics and electricity.

Figure 1. Example of a diagnostic network representation supplied by an individual student.
State the statistical analysis being used and what is being compared. For example, tell whether you are using ANOVA, state the means of the items being compared, then state your statistical conclusion in terms of statistical significance and report the statistical information at the end of this concluding sentence. For example: "There was a significant difference between the groups' responses (F(28) = 3.12, p<.05)".

4. Discussion and conclusions
The Discussion section is where you provide your interpretation of the results. Was the hypothesis (or hypotheses) supported or not? Quite often a paper finishes with a proposal for future work. Overall, the architecture of a research paper can be viewed as a vase. The introduction starts broad and provides a stable foundation for the information to come, the paper then narrows to its main points and finally broadens again, fanning out into new horizons. 

5. Acknowledgement
A brief acknowledgement section may be included before the reference section.

References
Do not use numbering for the References section header. Make sure that all the citations in your paper are correctly referenced in the Reference section. The Reference section is placed at the end of the manuscript and is headed by the term “References”. Entries should be listed in alphabetical order. Second and all following lines should be indented. Examples of the most common types of reference book, articles, and chapters from an edited book can be found below. For others, please refer to the APA style guide.

Books
Author's name(s). (Publication date). Name of Book (Edition number if appropriate). Location of publishing company: Name of publisher.
Example:
Anderson, D. (2001). Beyond change management: Advanced strategies for today’s transformational leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Journal Articles
Author's name(s) (Publication date). Title of article. Name of journal, Volume number, page numbers. DOI is optional
Examples:
Cook, D. M., & Bero, L. A. (2009). The politics of smoking in federal buildings: An executive order case study. American Journal of Public Health, 99(9), 1588-1595. doi:10.1025/APJH.2008.151829
Hijzen, A., Upward, R., & Wright, P. W. (2010). The income losses of displaced workers. Journal of Human Resources, 45(1), 243-269.

Book Chapter
Author's name(s) (Publication date). Title of chapter. In editor's name(s) (Eds.), Name of book (page numbers). Location of publishing Company: Name of publisher.
Example:
Goodman, M. (1955). Organizational inertia or corporate change momentum. In D. P. Cushman & S. Sanderson (Eds.), Communicating organizational change: A management perspective (pp. 95-112). Albany, NY: New York Press.
 
Reviewer Guidelines
Dear Referee,
Use the following guidelines for reviewing a submitted paper. Since the idea is to give constructive feedback, provide positive examples if possible. Only a constructive and friendly manner of making comments is helpful and requested. In your review, clearly indicate the issues, which need to be improved as well as the strengths of the proposal. About 2-3 sentences about each issue is sufficient.
For each section, there is a maximum number of points available.
Please make sure you send your review back through the web system by January 30, 2013.

1. Title: Does the title represent the main concern of the proposal? (1 p)
2. Abstract: Is the abstract an appropriate summary of the paper? (2 p)
3. Introduction/Theoretical background: What is the theoretical framework? Is the theoretical information appropriate to comprehend the research objective? Does it summarize theoretical implications and connections with previous studies in the area? (1p for introduced theoretical framework + 1p for implications and connections)
4. Method(s): What is the research method? Is the (planned) study design appropriate with regard to the research objective? Are the analyses used appropriately for the research question and kind of data? Is the information about the study informative and concise? (2p for reporting the method and its suitability)
5. Data and Findings: Are the results reported comprehensively and do they emerge from analysis? Is argumentation clear and easy to follow? Can the reported data be used to answer the research question? Are the reported data detailed to the extent that conclusions can be derived and justified? (1p for argumentation + 1p for clear presentation of results)
6. Conclusions and discussion: Is the conclusion reasonable and does it refer to research intentions? Are the findings related with those of other studies and are these relations explained? What is the scientific/societal relevance? (2p for addressing research questions comprehensively + 1p for discussing findings in wider context)
7. Overall impressions e.g., did you experience any comprehension difficulties because of insufficient or superfluous information? Was the organization of the paper clear? Was the paper written according to the given guidelines? (2p for clarity and good style)

Total points available: 14

*These are based on the GIREP-EPEC 2011 Conference paper guideless https://www.jyu.fi/en/congress/girep2011/Instructions