Get your Evidence and Policy paper right the first time: a ready-made structure with the right abstract and citations, so editors see your science, not formatting slips.
4.7
Authored by Sumalatha Gangadhar | Published on 11 August, 2026
Submitting to Evidence and Policy goes smoothly when your draft already matches the journal's own rules. Editors screen new manuscripts against the Evidence and Policy guide for authors before peer review, so formatting, structure, and required statements should be right on the first draft rather than repaired during upload. This template sets that structure up for you.
It is a manuscript shell aligned to Evidence and Policy. It covers front matter, the abstract the journal expects, a body organized to the journal's article types, and a reference list in the journal's required style. Confirm current scope and article types on the Evidence and Policy journal page before you draft.
Prepare the title, authors, affiliations, and ORCID iDs. Write the abstract to the journal's rule and word limit, organize the body to the article type, and apply the required reference style from the first citation. Complete every declaration (ethics, competing interests, funding, data availability) the Evidence and Policy guide for authors lists, and cite figures and tables in order.
The common failure modes are formatting or reference style that does not match the guide for authors, missing required statements, and an incomplete portal checklist. Clear all three against the Evidence and Policy guide for authors before you submit.
The shell mirrors what editorial staff check first: article-type fit, the abstract rules, required declarations, and the journal's reference style. For more detail see the author resources. When your draft is ready, upload it through Editorial Manager.
| Element | Evidence Policy requirement |
|---|---|
| Abstract | Structured abstract, up to 250 words, with requirements varying by article type. Research articles (5-7000 words): 5 parts - Introduction (state topic, identify key gaps, specify aims/research questions), Methods/Data (describe study design, sample, data sources, collection procedures), Analytic Plan (explain analytic approach), Results (summarize primary findings), Conclusion/Implications (describe contribution and outline implications for policy/practice/future research). Review articles (5-7000 words): Same 5-part structure as research articles. Methods articles (5-7000 words): Same 5-part structure as research articles. Debate articles (3-5000 words): 4 parts - Background (describe controversy/central tension), Position (state author's central thesis), Arguments (summarize key supporting claims and evidence), Implications (identify how field/policy/practice should move forward). Practice articles (up to 3000 words): No abstract required |
| Main text | Word limits vary by article type: Research articles: 5-7000 words including figures and tables (shorter papers up to 5000 words encouraged); Review articles: 5-7000 words including figures and tables (shorter papers up to 5000 words encouraged); Methods articles: 5-7000 words including figures and tables (shorter papers up to 5000 words encouraged); Debate articles: 3-5000 words including figures and tables (shorter papers up to 3000 words encouraged); Practice articles: up to 3000 words (shorter papers preferred), maximum 10 references. Note: half-page figure/table = 300 words, so reduce word count by 300 for each half-page figure. Sections typically include: Background, Methods, Findings/Results, Discussion, Conclusion (specific order depends on article type) |
| Declarations | Ethics approval/consent as applicable; competing interests; funding; data availability |
| Figures/tables | Publication-ready; cited in order |
| Supplemental | Upload separately when used |
| Keywords | Up to four key words/short phrases required, listed on the cover page along with article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, and word count |
| References | Custom version of the Harvard system. In-text citations: author surname followed by year in brackets; for two authors list both surnames; for multiple authors use first author's surname followed by 'et al' and year. If multiple references to same author and year, distinguish with a, b, c, etc. List references chronologically in text (old to new). Full reference list at end: list all authors up to six; for more than six list first six followed by 'et al'. Book and journal titles in italics. Website details at end of reference. Do not use ibid/op cit |
| Peer review | Double-anonymous peer review (also called double-blind). Both the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process. Authors must submit a fully anonymised manuscript separate from the cover page. All submissions (except practice articles and commentaries) passing initial editor review are subject to anonymous peer-review by at least two referees |
| Submission | www.editorialmanager.com/evidpol/default.aspx |
Read the Evidence and Policy guide for authors once before drafting and once before upload. Draft the abstract after results are stable. Set the reference style before adding citations. Keep a cover letter that states your contribution and fit to Evidence and Policy in under a page.
Skim two or three recent Evidence Policy papers to calibrate depth and figure style. Make the novelty clear in the first two pages. Deposit data and code when the policy on the Evidence and Policy journal page requires it. Disclose any preprint or conference version with identifiers in the cover letter.
Do one focused pass against the Evidence and Policy guide for authors: scope, length, reference style, required declarations, and figure quality. Then submit through Editorial Manager.