Author Guidelines

FBR Guidelines for Manuscript

• Two hard copies of the manuscript and electronic version in MS Word format (as an attachment) of the same should be submitted via e-mail at editorfbr@fbr.edu.in

• All text should be in double space with 1-inch margin on all sides on A-4 size paper using Cambria

• The first page of the manuscript should have the title of the paper, name of the author(s), organizational affiliation, complete mailing address, phone number, fax number and an organizational email address. The author name, affiliation, or any other information should not be indicated in the manuscript elsewhere. The title should be in typed in upper case and lower case letters in upper half of the page in centre

• Second page of manuscript should have the abstract of no more than 200 worlds. The list of keywords should follow after the abstract paragraph, and the word Keywords should be italicized, indented five spaces from the left margin, and separated by a comma (,).

• All tables, charts & graphs should be prepared on separate sheets after the references section and numbered continuously in Arabic numerical as referred to in the text. The sources, wherever necessary, should be mentioned at the bottom.

• Tables and charts should have self-explanatory titles. The heading of the tables and figures should be typed in upper case and lower case letters.

• The last page of the manuscript must have a brief autobiographical sketch of all the authors in about 100 words for each author.

• References should be arranged in alphabetical order and using APA guidelines (Please see http://www.apastyle.org for details).

FBR Case Guideline

Editorial Criteria for Publishing Case Study in FBR

• Submissions to the collection must include a teaching case and associated teaching notes.

• You may send us a full case or an abstract of a Case -in-Progress, which will eventually be complete in all respects

• Please consider the following points when preparing your submission

Your Teaching Case Study

• The teaching case should describe the actions of a central protagonist who makes the management decisions.

• The case should effectively capture an issue and get projected as an attractive story,

• Does your teaching case feature a central management issue or decision? Does this issue have valuable applications to the teaching environment?

• The issue should not be too obvious, nor should it be impossible to define. Make sure the case includes the data needed to tackle the issue - not too much, not too little.

• The case should present a balanced perspective of multiple dimensions of the issue in focus.

• Can the teaching case be used to provide 'currently useful generalizations' applicable to your chosen subject area?

Your Teaching Notes

• Have you identified your target audience?

• Does your teaching case allow students to discover up to four key learning points?

• Could a different faculty member teach the case independently based on your teaching notes?

• Do you have a specific plan for the first 15 minutes of your class session, including the opening question?

• Do you have a specific plan for the final 15 minutes of your class session (which is when the students should have realized the key learning points)?

• How has the case been received by students? Do you have expected answers, including good answers and typical mistakes?

• How sensitive is the case to changing business conditions?

Reference:

http://www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/products/new/pdf/author_guidelines.pdf

FBR Website Review Guidelines

• What should a website reviewer cover?

• Name of the site

• The URL of the site

• Relevance to the readership, i.e the intent of the site. Note whether a first time visitor discovers what the website is trying to accomplish.

• Main features (search engine functionality, downloadable formats, etc.). Did you find any link that was not working (please make a note of that)

• Content - including amount of content, quality of content & credibility of resources

• Layout of the site including navigation & ease of use- note if there is a sitemap for this website or not.

• Design of the website, the colours, the font, basically the visual organization - whether they are giving a cluttered look or is it plain & simple & understandable. You may add some screen shots for a visual review.

• Your opinion as to why the site is valuable to you & to its intended readership; evaluate the website on its overall effectiveness. You may use www.alexa.com or any free website review tool for getting some analytics on the website which includes its social media presence, its ranking, most commonly used keywords to reach the website, etc.

• Conversation facilitation of the website (any link on the website that seems unique and which may facilitate high recall).

When reviewing a website, initially explore the site in general. Get a sense of what the site offers and whether it is relevant to your practice, as well as its potential interest or value to a wider audience. Next, describe the look and accessibility of the website, is it engaging? Is it easy to find the information you are looking for? Does the website use relevant graphics and other media to illustrate and support information without distracting from the written content? Are you able to access everything you want to?

What will a reader find when he/she visits the site? Describe the website's target audience and provide the reader with some background information regarding the content. Is the material appropriate, accurate and contemporary? What readers want most of all is your opinion on the website. They want to know if it was useful, how you used it, what worked, what didn't work, how you felt about it and what practical or clinical relevance it has. Conclude your review with a summary of your opinions as to who may benefit from using the site, and whether you recommend it or not, and why?

Reference: Brandenburg, E. (2007). A Guide to Writing Website Reviews.Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 5(1). Retrieved from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/jephc/vol5/iss1/5

FBR Conference Review Guideline

The conference review is aimed to make readers aware about the conference being reviewed. The reviewer should be able to review conference in away so that it gives full description of the conference to the readers' along with the key highlights. Conference review should be in between 2000-2500 words.

The conference review should be done keeping the following points in mind:

• Whether it's a one-time conference or a regular conference, its place date etc.

• Whether it's international conference

• How many tracks were there in conference

• How many scholars presented their papers, from how many coutnries

• Inaugural session, Panel Speakers and briefly explaining the panel discussion if any or any other track of that sort

• Key highlights of conference in terms of whether there were some special session on how to write research papers or how to publish in international journals or any other session

• Description of various tracks in the conference

• Reviewer can also mention about some of the key papers being presented

• The takeaway from the conference, recommendation to readers etc.

FBR Book Review Guidelines

A book review should evaluate the arguments of a book rather than repeat information readily available online. In other words, it should not be a simple chapter-by-chapter summary of a text, but rather a critical discussion of its content, structure, and style that places the text within the context of scholarly literature.

Instructions for Preparation

A book review should not exceed 1500 words. Pages should be numbered, and the manuscript should be double-spaced in 12-point font with 1" margins on all sides. It should not include headers or footers. The book review must contain the publication data above the main text, using the following format:

Author Name, Book Name, Publisher Detail along with Place, Year, Page, Price and ISBN number.

eg: Ruchir Sharma, Break Out Nations: In Pursuit of next economic miracle, New Delhi: Allen Lane, 2012, 291 pp., Rs.530 (Hardback). ISBN: 978-1-846-14556-8

Reviewer Guidelines:

• The review should introduce the reader to the book's content and focus on the subject of the book being reviewed.

• Avoid repeating its table of contents; rather, give the reader some idea of the author's thesis and how he or she develops it.

• If the book is an edited collection of essays, or chapters by different individuals, give some idea of the overall theme and content, but be free to focus on specific chapters you consider particularly significant or worthwhile.

• Inform the reader about what is happening in the area of academic activity the book addresses; what the state of knowledge is in the subject; and how this new book adds, changes, or breaks new ground in our knowledge of this subject.

• Add flavor to the review by including powerful or revealing quotations from the book or notable facts or findings.

• Be specific. Give details. Try not to be too abstract or vague

• Do not tell the author what book you feel he or she should have written. Try not to use strong words against the book or author

• Do not point out the author's flaws, but display in a detailed and instructive way your expertise on the subject.

• Readers should know whether or not you recommend the book in a polite manner

Please maintain consistency throughout the paper

Resources

• http://www.citationmachine.net/

• https://scholar.google.co.in/schhp?hl=en

• https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/

• http://www.apastyle.org/manual/related/sample-experiment-paper-1.pdf

References

• American Psychological Association. (2009). Publication manual of the American psychological association. American Psychological Association (APA).