We welcome all contributions to Intrepid Ed News and encourage all points of view. This site is a resource as well as a forum for the exchange of ideas. Send submissions in an editable document to the Editor.
Intrepid Ed News (IEN) expects that all submissions (see content types below) will reflect the innovative and provocative philosophy that was central to the original Intrepid. All content should be written in a form that provides a point of view that is supported by evidence or research, even if anecdotal. All sources of evidence/research should be hyperlinked in the body of the submission. Case studies may be submitted, but they should not be self-promotional, promote your institution, or any individuals within that institution. We need to know if your submission has been previously published and where. Our preference is that you publish on IEN first, but there are circumstances under which that preference could be withheld. We will try to turn around your submission with editorial comments as quickly as possibles since the timeliness of many articles is critical. Less timely articles may take a bit longer.
IEN Schedule of Content Types
Featured Headline Article: Well-constructed and robust article based on historical evidence, research/survey results, and best practices. These features may also include news and other developments from IEN Partners and potential topical series from Columnists. The goal is to begin conversations rather than end them (Will Accreditation Ever Require Outputs Rather Than Inputs?). 1500+ words.
Category Feature: Insights on specific topics in education (CBE, DEI, Remote Learning, etc.); may include research references, survey results and analysis, pilot projects, experience assessments, and best practices. The goal is to educate the reader. (Implementing CBE at The Mount Vernon School). 1000 words.
Blog Post/Opinion Article: Point of view on an educational topic, large or small. Should be based on concrete information, but can take the form of a forecast. The goal is to present multiple points of view on specific topics. (Why CBE credentialing reinforces the national meritocracy and political divide). 500 words.
Book/Film Review: Review with an evaluation of an educational book or film. The goal is to advise IEN readers (Grading for Equity, Waiting for Superman). 750 words.
Video Spotlight (Teacher/Innovation): Created from an interview of educators on a specific innovation topic or strategy. 45-60 minute interview resulting in up to four 3-4 minute clips and a brief description of the innovation.
Podcast Series: Audio discussion of education topics. The goal is to inform and begin a conversation. 15-20 minute segments.Cartoon (Still/Video): Contribution of a static cartoon/cartoon strip or an animated video explaining a concept. 3-5 minutes.
IEN Retraction Guidelines
(adapted from https://publicationethics.org/node/19896)
We will retract an article if:
- We have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of a major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error) or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
- It constitutes plagiarism
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
- It contains material or data without authorization for use
- Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
- It reports unethical research
- It has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer review process
- The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.
Notices of retraction will:
- Be linked to the retracted article wherever possible (ie, in all online versions)
- Clearly identify the retracted article (eg, by including the title and authors in the retraction heading or citing the retracted article)
- Be clearly identified as a retraction (ie, distinct from other types of correction or comment)
- Be published promptly to minimize harmful effects
- Be freely available to all readers (ie, not behind access barriers or available only to subscribers)
- State who is retracting the article
- State the reason(s) for retraction
- Be objective, factual and avoid inflammatory language
Retractions are not usually appropriate if:
- The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings
- The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns
- An editor has inconclusive evidence to support retraction or is awaiting additional information such as from an institutional investigation
- Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view these are not likely to have influenced interpretations or recommendations or the conclusions of the article.
