Perspectives

This format is designed for well-argued position or opinion papers that contribute to ethical thinking in coaching, mentoring, education, supervision, leadership, and related professional contexts.

Perspectives may be conceptual, reflective, or practice-informed, but must present a clear and coherent line of argument grounded in relevant literature and/or established theoretical frameworks. Professional experience or philosophical inquiry may be used to support and illustrate the argument. Submissions may also introduce, develop, or critically examine conceptual models and frameworks.

Length

1000–8000 words (excluding references)

Length should be proportionate to the nature and scope of the contribution. Focused position, opinion, or reflective papers may be relatively concise, while substantial conceptual or theoretical papers, including those developing models or frameworks, may require greater length.

Submission Format

Please include:

  1. Title
  2. Author(s)
  3. Abstract (150–250 words)

A concise overview of the paper’s central argument or focus.

  1. Keywords (5)
  2. Main Paper

The main body of the paper should present a clear and coherent argument, reflection, or position, grounded in relevant literature or theoretical frameworks.

Papers are expected to:

  • Develop a well-structured line of thinking
  • Engage critically with relevant literature or established theoretical perspectives
  • Offer insight, critique, or development of ideas
  • Draw clear connections to ethical practice where appropriate

Suggested structure:

  • Introduction (approx. 250–400 words)
  • Main Discussion (flexible structure)
  • Conclusion (approx. 200 words)

Headings and subheadings may be used as appropriate.

  1. References (APA format)
  2. Generative AI Disclosure

    Authors should include a statement outlining any use of generative AI tools where such use has materially contributed to the substantive content, analysis, or intellectual framing of the work.

    The use of generative AI as part of idea development, reflection, language refinement, or editorial support does not require disclosure. This is considered analogous to engaging with colleagues, mentors, or other forms of intellectual exchange.

    Authors remain fully responsible for the originality, accuracy, and integrity of the work. Generative AI tools must not be used to produce content that is presented as the author’s own without substantive author input, interpretation, and validation.

    Please select and adapt the statement that best reflects your use.

    1. No generative AI used
      No generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.
    2. Substantive contribution to writing or content
      Generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT) were used to support aspects of substantive content development or drafting. All content has been critically reviewed, verified, and finalised by the author(s).
    3. Methodological or analytical use
      Generative AI tools were used in aspects of data analysis or methodological processing. All analytical decisions, interpretations, and conclusions were conducted and validated by the author(s).
    4. Visual content generation (if applicable)
      Generative AI tools were used in the development of figures or visual materials. All outputs were reviewed and refined by the author(s).