Guidelines for Submitting Articles

For the Neuro-Semantics® Web Site

L. Michael Hall, Ph.D.
Bobby G. Bodenhamer, D.Min.

As you undoubtedly know, The Society of Neuro-Semantics has a strong commitment to offering high quality, professional, and scholarly presentations.  Overall, this means that we do not want and will not publish anything that does not give proper credit to others, that takes snide shots at others, that presents something with arrogance or contempt, etc.  Further, inasmuch as the whole focus is the ongoing development of the NLP and the Neuro-Semantics Models, we primarily want articles that extend thought, research, experience, and discovery in these areas.

As you make your submission, think about devoting as much time and thought to it as you would to any professional Journal.  Your work will be read for years to come and referenced.  It is also a reflection on us.  It reflects on our values, the quality of our work, etc.

The following boundaries and constraints are offered in a Win/Win attitude.  Your submission of creative, insightful, and thoughtful work enriches the NLP and Neuro-Semantic community.  It enriches those who read your submissions.

Can you write a piece that disagrees with us?  You bet.  We certainly welcome thought articles that take us to task on our books, research, training, etc.  After all, we have no monopoly on NLP or modeling excellence, and we also make mistakes, misunderstand, etc.  Articles that deal with models, theories, processes, etc. that point out weaknesses give us the ability to grow, to take a second look, to tweak our models, and to receive from you.  Yet, we will not publish things that get personal, attack someone character, use emotionally laden terms that insult or degrade.  Such will not be accepted.

We reserve the right to edit your work and to edit it extensively.  This does not mean that we think we are better writers.  Not at all.  It means that we are seeking to bring the paper into accord with our general style and emphasis.  We may cut it down due to size, redundancy, tangential issues, too much self-promotion, etc.  We may rewrite to make it more readable.  Do get acquainted with our style by downloading and reading what we have already published.

In publishing another’s works, we ask that for any area of controversy you completely own your own opinions, acknowledge them as opinions and leave room for respect to those who might disagree.  We don’t need more little dictators who think that they have some monopoly on “the truth.”  We will edit out  Yes, stand up for your beliefs and argue for them as persuasively as you can, and also do so with integrity, respect, and humility.  dogmatic statements that sound like you have slipped into “the Deity Mode” as they say in General Semantics.

Criteria to Keep in Mind and Check before Sending:

1) Keep footnotes and endnotes to a minimum.  Aim to write a 5 page article with 5 to 10 references.  Refuse to fall into the habit that many scholars do where they carry on debates with others in the footnotes.  We really don’t want that here.  If you need to contact someone and send them your article please do so.

2) Give credit!  Use the APA style for footnoting.  We have already established a reputation for quoting and giving credit to lots of people and we want that to continue.

3) Go very, very lightly on graphics.  Graphics take up so much space on the Web site … that eventually also means it costs us money to maintain and expand.

4) Engage in a minimal amount of self-referencing.  Quote from more than just yourself.  It doesn’t come across well!

5) Strong opinions to be fully owned and the objectivity to note that others hold a different view which is just as legitimate.

6) No personal attacks.  Write with the dignity and respect that you would want in return.

7) Clean up your writing.  Proof and proof it again to check for typos and awkward expressions.