Login or Register to make a submission.

Author Guidelines

General information for authors
Fennia publishes papers in three categories: Research Papers, Reviews and Essays, and Reflections. The journal advocates transparency in publication processes and, as part of this agenda, encourages double-open review process. The review practice is discussed with each author and reviewer, to ensure an ethical and good quality review process.

  • Research Papers are original full-length articles that make a significant contribution to geographical and related research. (peer review, double-blind or double-open)
  • Reviews and Essays are papers introducing empirical, theoretical or methodological insights. Also literature reviews, lectures, and essays are published in the section. (peer review, double-blind or double-open)
  • Reflections section includes commentaries, debates, discussion pieces, interventions, and other argumentative short texts related to contemporary issues. (editorial reviewing)

Special issues can be suggested on all geographically relevant topics. A proposal including a short synopsis, the names of editors, and a tentative list of authors should be sent to the editor-in-chief by email. The journal works with special issue editors in a dialogical manner throughout the process, which ensures that each paper is reviewed, revised and published as part of the collection.

Fennia increases the societal impact of research in collaboration with the Versus online publication that produces science-based common sense articles. Versus offers a platform for multilingual publishing, welcoming contributions in Finnish, Swedish, English, Spanish, German, and Russian (and in other languages if resources for translation are available). The Societal Impact Editor of Fennia and Leading Editorial Assistant at Versus is responsible for the popularization of the Fennia content.

Open Journal Systems (OJS)
Fennia accepts only online submission using the OJS. The system works best with Mozilla Firefox or Google Chrome while Internet Explorer does not guarantee to process the whole steps of the manuscript submission. We apologise for this technical inconvenience. Should you encounter problems with the system, please contact the managing editor.

Manuscript preparation

Research Paper manuscripts should be below 10,000 words, Reviews and Essays below 6,000 words and Reflections below 3,000 words (including everything). Manuscripts should be word processed without layout styling and automated citation/reference listing, with 1.5 line spacing and 12 pt font, and submitted as PDF files (instructions for removing identifying information). Please use pagination. Two levels of subheadings may be used, first in bold and second in italics. Only the first letter and proper names are capitalised in headings, and numbering is not used. Please use substantial headings that describe the content of the subsection instead of general titles (not 'Methods', 'Results', etc.). For direct quotes please use "double comma" and add page numbers in the reference placed at the end of the sentence, and use 'single comma' for other purposes. Abbreviations are not used in text. It is recommended that authors check stylistic details from recently published Fennia content.

 In the publication system, authors can leave a note to the editors, to provide details about the submission, including suggestions for suitable reviewers and expression of preference on open or double-blind peer review process (for the open peer review option, see recent Fennia editorials).

The language of the journal is English. The manuscripts should be clearly written, concise and grammatically correct (American/British style used consistently). The authors who do not have idiomatic English skills are asked to have their texts professionally proof read prior to publication. During the review process, language editing is not requested unless necessary to assure fair treatment. Should you need assistance with language editing, do not hesitate to contact the editors.

Main document
In the article manuscript, please include

  • title of the article
  • abstract (up to 300 words), keywords (up to six) and list of references (excluding self-references by choice)
  • remove personal details if you prefer double-blind peer review, in open review processes anonymisation not needed

Title page
On a separate title page, please provide

  • title of the article
  • full contact information of the corresponding author
  • author name(s) and affiliation(s), in the right order of co-authoring
  • ORCID iD's (https://orcid.org/0000-0000-0000-0000) (voluntary)
  • acknowledgements

Notes should be restricted to minimum. Please do not use word processor indexing; indicate them in the text with upper numerical index. Notes are placed before the references.

Acknowledgements should be included in the title page and the unblinded versions of the manuscript only.

Equations should be numbered consecutively with bracketed Arabic numerals in the right-hand margin. Instructions for any special typeface is required (e.g., bold, italic, Greek, etc). Careful attention should be paid to sub- and superscript symbols, and upper- and lower-case letters.

Measurements follow the SI metric system. Numerals are used in the text for full units of measurement but words should be used for quantities of objects, persons, etc., and for numbers from one to ten.

Artwork guidelines
Figures (including maps, line arts, photographs and illustrations) as well as tables should be sited in numerical order (e.g., Fig. 4, Table 1). Each figure and table is included as a separate supplementary file (NOT embedded in the text document).

  • Format and resolution: Figures in encapsulated postscript (EPS) or good resolution raster format (continuous tone images as TIF/JPG at least 300 dpi, line art of combination line/tone as EPS at 800 dpi) and MS Word (insert table -function) for tables
  • Dimension: Artwork form and size should be suitable for the page layout (width 149 mm, height 195 mm)
  • Font: Uniform lettering and sizing in the figures and tables (Arial, Calibri and Times New Roman preferred)
  • Colour: The use of colour, particularly for complex maps and diagrams, is encouraged in the digital journal; unnecessary gray shading should be avoided in line art
  • Placement: The approximate position of figures and tables should be marked in the text (e.g. [Figure 1])
  • Figures: Multi-panel figures are grouped and labeled (a), (b), (c), etc., preferably in the upper left corner; use colours in preference to pattern fills where possible; units of axes should appear in parentheses after the axis name
  • Tables: Should be constructed using 'Tabs' rather than spaces; horizontal layout is recommended when necessary for large tables; use few horizontal rules and no vertical rules; units should appear in parentheses after the column or row title (e.g. Time (days))
  • Captions: Figure and table captions are typed on a separate document; they should be concise, but as informative as possible. Explain all symbols and abbreviations used

Supplementary material
Supplementary electronic material relevant to the article is welcomed.

Copyrights and permissions
The authors are responsible for obtaining copyright permission for the reproduction of any images, tables or supplementary material from published works and to ensure adequate acknowledgement of the source.

Fennia follows the Harvard system in referencing. The authors are asked to recheck references after each revision, to make sure that all references cited in the text are included in the list and that all references given in the list are cited in the text.

  • In the text, references are listed first in chronological order and second in alphabetical order and separated by a semi-colon (e.g. Foucault 1977; Thompson et al. 1993a, 1993b; Moon & Curtis 1998, 293–295; BBC 2016; Hannonen 2016). References are placed at the end of a sentence for readability, and long lists of references are to be avoided. Page numbers are included in direct quotes (e.g. Foucault 1977, 28).
  • In the list, references are listed alphabetically at the end of the paper under the heading References; please note to include DOI codes both for the journal articles and the books, which are required in all OJS publications (how to find DOI codes). References are provided in the following formats:

Journal articles:
Batey, P. W. J., Madden, M. & Scholefield, G. (1993) Socio-economic impact assessment of large-scale projects using input-output analysis: a case study of an airport. Regional Studies 27(3) 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343409312331347485
Dikeç, M. (2016) Disruptive politics. Urban Studies [online Oct 11 2016] https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016671476

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by A. Allen Lane. Penguin, London.
Harvey, D. (1992) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Cambridge.
Hannonen, O. (2016) Peace and quiet beyond the border: the trans-border mobility of Russian second home owners in Finland. Dissertations in Social Sciences and Business Studies No 118. University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu. epublications.uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2099-7/urn_isbn_978-952-61-2099-7.pdf

Book chapters:
Moon, G. & Curtis, S. (1998) Health and health policy in Europe. In Unwin, T. (ed.) A European Geography, 291–310. Longman, Harlow. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315841540-18
Kuusisto-Arponen, A-K. (2016) Relating self, place and memory: spatial trauma among the British and Finnish war children. In Harker, C., Horschelmann, K. & Skelton, T. (eds.) Conflict, Violence and Peace. Geographies of Children and Young People, vol 11. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4585-98-9_18-1

Kludt, T. (2016) Hillary Clinton lost the election but is winning the popular vote. CNN Politics 10.11.2016 edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/index.html. 25.11.2016.
BBC (2016) Mosul battle: 'Iraqi forces' tortured and killed villagers 10.11.2016 www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-37930402. 25.11.2016.
Wikstrom, A. (2013) The Challenge of Change: Planning for social urban resilience. Master's Thesis in Urban and Regional Planning, Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn%3Anbn%3Ase%3Asu%3Adiva-91920.

Two or more references to the same author(s):
Lajeunesse, A. (2016) Lock,  Stock,  and  Icebergs:  a  History  of  Canada’s  Arctic  Maritime  Sovereignty.  UBC  Press, Vancouver.
Lajeunesse, A. (2018) Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic. Brief to the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. House of Commons, Ottawa. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/FAAE/Brief/BR10003044/br-external/LajeunesseAdam-e.pdf

Submission process
The submission process includes four steps. Should the editors ask you to revise your submission before peer review, please log in and revise your submission through the same steps.

Step 1: Select the publication category and carefully read and check the submission checklist and the copyright notice (see below).
Step 2: Upload the blinded pdf version of the manuscript, named "Title_blinded" (no supplementary files).
Step 3: Provide details, including author(s), supporting agencies, title, abstract, keywords, and the list of references.
Step 4: Upload supplementary files, including the manuscript with full author details, figures and tables (blinded), and figure and table captions (blinded). Name them as "Title_unblinded", "Figure 1_blinded", "Table 1_blinded", etc.

After the revisions, the author is asked to resubmit all files and a response letter to the comments. To do this, go to the Review interleaf, select “In review: revisions required” and scroll down to “Editor Decision”. In “Upload Author Version”, choose the revised files one at a time and press Upload after each file. The files will appear as Author Version. Name the files as "Title_revised_blinded", "Title_response letter", "Title_revised_unblinded", Figure 1_revised_blinded", etc.

Open review process includes a discussion between authors and reviewers, facilitated by the responsible editor.  Instructions for the discussion are provided by the editor during the process. Peer reviewers are invited to write a commentary to the published paper upon acceptance.

For the copyediting process, upload your text and also Tables as word-files.

Publication ethics and malpractice
Fennia works actively for ethical publication, including the enhancement of transparency in publication processes. As part of this agenda, we encourage double-open review process, and we also invite reviewers to publish their comments in our Reflections section in parallel with the accepted article. With special issue editors, we work dialogically throughout the whole publication process. Overall, the editors take active roles in all publication processes, and the authors and guest editors should feel welcome to contact us at any point of the process.

Manuscripts are screened for plagiarism by the editors and plagiarism software is applied when reason to doubt. We follow the TSV instructions for “Responsible conduct of research and procedures for handling allegations of misconduct in Finland” and adhere to COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines on Publication Ethics. Selected guidelines are listed below:

  1. Editors are accountable for everything published in Fennia, champion freedom of expression and maintain the integrity of the academic record
  2. Manuscripts will be evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors
  3. Editors strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely
  4. Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper
  5. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor
  6. Reviewers should call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge
  7. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements by the authors constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable
  8. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted
  9. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable
  10. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study; all those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors; where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors; the corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication
  11. Editors preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards
  12. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication are based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal
  13. Editors have systems to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected and material submitted to their journal remains confidential while under review
  14. Editors have a duty to act if they suspect misconduct or if an allegation of misconduct is brought to them; this duty extends to both published and unpublished papers
  15. Editors ensure the integrity of the academic record; errors, inaccurate or misleading statements are to be corrected promptly and with due prominence
  16. Editors encourage and are willing to consider cogent criticisms of work published in their journal
  17. Authors of criticised material will be given the opportunity to respond
  18. Authors ensure that the research meets the ethical guidelines, including adherence to the legal requirements of the study country

Submission Preparation Checklist

As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
  • I confirm that the manuscript has been submitted solely to this journal and is not published, in press or submitted elsewhere.
  • I confirm that the research meets the guidelines on publications ethics and malpractice.
  • I confirm that I have prepared complete and blinded versions of all files.
  • The manuscript length is below 10,000/6,000/3,000 words.
  • The manuscript is written in idiomatic English (suggestions for language reviewing may be requested from the corresponding editor).
  • The general structure of the manuscript follows the Fennia guidelines.
  • The referencing is based on the Harvard system and follows the Fennia style.
  • Figures and tables are of adequate quality and submitted separately following the Fennia guidelines.
  • The submitted text and the attached file properties are anonymous to ensure double-blind peer review (requests for open peer review should be made to the corresponding editor).