1. Format and Content Requirements

Submissions should be organized around a clear, compelling narrative that addresses:

• A real-world administrative or organizational experience
• Key challenges, decisions, or tensions encountered
• Reflections on what was learned, why it mattered, and what others might take away

Suggested components:

• Title (descriptive and specific)
• Structured abstract (see below)
• Body of the narrative (divided into sections if helpful, but flexible in structure)
• Conclusion or "Lessons Learned" section
• References (if used; optional): References are optional. When used, they should support the reflection rather than define its structure.

 

 

2. Structured Abstract (6Ws + Lessons Learned)

Length: 150–250 words

Please include a structured abstract addressing the following elements:

• Who– What organization or group is this about?
• What– What event, reform, or process is being reflected on?
• When– When did it take place?
• Where– Where did it occur (institutionally and geographically)?
• Why– Why is this experience important or meaningful?
• How– How did the author(s) engage with or observe it?
• Lessons Learned– What key insights, tensions, or takeaways emerged?

 

 

3. Length and Style

• Recommended length: 2,500–5,000 words (including references)
• Style:

• Clear, engaging, and reflective
• Avoid academic jargon and overly formal tone
• First-person voice is allowed and encouraged
• Citations are optional; use only to support—not dominate—the narrative

 

4. Review Process and Confidentiality

• Transparency at Submission
  Submissions to the Administrative Reflections section must include real names of individuals, organizations, places, events, and any other relevant information necessary to provide an accurate and authentic account.
• Initial Editorial Screening
  The journal editor will review the submitted manuscript to assess its suitability for the Administrative Reflections section based on thematic fit, relevance, and adherence to submission guidelines.
• Early Rejection
  If the editor determines that the manuscript is not suitable for this section, the author(s) will be notified, and the review process will be discontinued.
• Confidentiality Adjustment (if needed)
  If the manuscript is deemed suitable, the editor will consult with the author(s) to determine whether any content needs to be revised or anonymized to address ethical, legal, or institutional confidentiality concerns. In addition, the editor may consult with reviewers or request clarification if the degree of anonymization impacts the reflection's clarity or usefulness. Finally, any anonymization or revisions to confidential content must be discussed with and approved by the editor before the manuscript enters peer review.
• Peer Review
  Once any necessary confidentiality adjustments have been made, the manuscript will proceed to peer review.
• Post-Acceptance Revisions
  If the manuscript is accepted for publication, the editor may request the author(s) to minimize any anonymization or disguised information—provided it does not compromise ethical or legal obligations—in order to preserve the reflection’s authenticity and value.

5. Legal Declaration and Institutional Consent

Because these reflections often involve identifiable organizations and internal processes, authors must submit a signed declaration upon acceptance.

Authors must confirm:

• The organization or institution described has reviewed and approved the final manuscript for publication.
• The author(s) accept full responsibility for the accuracy of the content, and agree that ASR is not liable for any reputational or legal consequences.
• Any identifiable information is included with appropriate permissions and ethical care.
• In rare cases where institutional objections are raised after publication and found to be legitimate, the journal reserves the right to retract or revise the piece in consultation with the author(s).

Required Form: Authors must sign and submit the Author Agreement and Institutional Consent Form upon acceptance