Who We Are

The IAABC Foundation Journal is a scholarly professional translational publication dedicated to advancing the science, ethics, and practice of animal behavior consulting and training. We publish a diverse range of content—including peer-reviewed research, applied case studies, professional commentary, and educational essays—that bridges the gap between theory and real-world application.

As an open-access, fully online publication, our goal is to provide behavior professionals, researchers, veterinary teams, and trainers with accessible, thought-provoking content grounded in evidence, experience, and compassion. Our unique format allows us to showcase both original scholarly work and professionally reviewed, practice-based pieces that reflect the complexities and ethical considerations of working with nonhuman animals.

We believe that meaningful change in the field begins with critical inquiry, interdisciplinary dialogue, and a commitment to lifelong learning. The IAABC Foundation Journal exists to support that mission—creating a space where professional practice, behavioral science, and ethical reflection come together.

Our Values

• Science-informed practice
• Respect for nonhuman agency and well-being
• Interdisciplinary and inclusive collaboration
• Accessibility in communication and education
• Critical reflection and ethical engagement

Scope

The journal welcomes submissions on topics including—but not limited to—animal behavior consulting, training methodologies, species-specific learning, welfare and well-being, ethics in practice, caregiver education, veterinary integration, and the intersection of human and nonhuman experiences. We publish work that reflects diverse species, settings, and approaches.

Purpose

To elevate the field of animal behavior consulting by providing an inclusive platform for evidence-based, ethically grounded, and practically useful content. As a scholarly-professional translational journal, we aim to bridge the gap between science and practice.

What We Are Looking For

The IAABC Foundation Journal seeks high-quality, scholarly and practical articles on a wide range of topics, including nonhuman animal behavior, animal science, learning, human-animal studies, pedagogy, ethics, and business, focusing on any species. Please note that we do not accept blog posts or guest submissions. An academic background is not a requirement to contribute—our goal is to showcase diverse perspectives and expertise. All articles, however, are held to a high standard of formal writing and structure and must be well supported by relevant empirical literature.
We are specifically looking for:

Scholarly:

• Case studies
• Original research
• Review articles and academic essays

Professional:

• Book or article reviews
• Interviews
• “How-to” articles (practical or skills development)

For detailed descriptions, please read the Submission Guidelines.

Target Audience

Behavior professionals, trainers, veterinarians and academics.

What You Get

Writing for the IAABC Foundation Journal is a chance to get professional feedback on your writing. We have a team of expert reviewers and a professional copy-editor who will give your work the attention and guidance it deserves. It is an opportunity to share your experience and knowledge with our community of readers.

Because the IAABC Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit charity organization, we are currently not able to offer financial compensation for authors. We also do not charge authors to submit their work to us.

Review Process

The IAABC Foundation Journal uses a tiered review system that reflects our translational model of publishing both scholarly and practitioner-focused work.

Applied Practitioner / Professional Submissions:

Applied and professional practice articles— such as (some) case studies, instructional pieces, interviews, or reflective essays—are reviewed through editorial review. These submissions are evaluated by our editorial team for clarity, relevance, originality, and alignment with the Journal’s mission to promote humane, evidence-informed practices. Authors may be asked to revise or expand their submissions prior to acceptance.

Scholarly Submissions:

Original research articles, literature reviews, (some) case studies, and academic essays undergo a two-pronged review process:

• Initial Editorial Review to assess scope, clarity, and suitability for our readership
• Double-Blind Peer Review by qualified reviewers in the relevant field, ensuring academic integrity, rigor, and ethical standards

This approach allows us to uphold both scientific and professional excellence while maintaining a commitment to accessibility, relevance, and ethical reflection across all contributions.

Multimedia Files:

To preserve the integrity of double-blind peer review, multimedia files (e.g., videos, audio recordings) that cannot be anonymized will not be shared with reviewers. Authors should ensure that all essential information is clearly described within the manuscript. Supplementary multimedia materials will be reviewed by the editorial team after acceptance and published alongside the final article.

Publication Ethics Statement

The IAABC Foundation Journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of ethical publishing in the fields of animal behaviour consulting and training. As a translational scholarly–professional journal, we bring together research, applied practice, and critical reflection. We expect all contributors — authors, reviewers, and editors — to engage in a process that is transparent, respectful, and guided by integrity.

We affirm that every article published in the Journal is evaluated on its intellectual merit, its contribution to both scholarship and practice, and its alignment with our mission to advance ethical, evidence-informed approaches to animal behaviour. We reject discrimination of any kind and strive to ensure that all voices are treated fairly and respectfully. Editorial decisions are free from commercial or personal influence and are guided by our standards of academic quality, relevance to practice, and ethical responsibility.

We follow best practice in ethical publication as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices.

Ethical Guidelines

The IAABC Foundation Journal is a scholarly–professional journal committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in publishing. These ethical guidelines set expectations for authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold integrity, transparency, and professionalism in all published content. Authors must read and follow these guidelines prior to submission. As part of the submission process, they will be required to sign a declaration confirming their agreement and accepting full responsibility for the authorship, originality, and integrity of their work.

Authorship and Contributions

• Authors must have made a substantial contribution to the work and be able to take public responsibility for its content.
• All contributors who do not meet authorship criteria (e.g., providing editorial assistance or technical support) should be acknowledged.
• Ghostwriting, honorary authorship, and undisclosed AI-generated content are not permitted.

Originality and Plagiarism

• Submissions must be original work and properly cite all sources, including previously published research, case studies, and theoretical frameworks.
• Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism (duplicate publication without proper citation), will result in rejection or retraction.
• Authors must disclose if any portion of their work has been previously published or is under consideration elsewhere.

Research Integrity (applicable to original research articles)

Authors must present data accurately and transparently. Fabrication, falsification, or selective reporting of data is strictly prohibited.
All submissions involving research, data collection, or structured observation of nonhuman animals or humans must demonstrate a commitment to ethical and welfare standards:

Institutional Ethics Approval

If your study was conducted under the auspices of an academic or research institution, please include:

• The name of the approving ethics committee
• The approval/reference number
• A statement confirming adherence to relevant welfare and ethical standards

Independent and Practitioner-Led Research

We recognise that many behavior professionals and trainers conduct meaningful, low-risk research outside institutional settings—such as structured observations or enrichment trials with their own animals. In such cases, where formal ethics approval was not required, authors must include a clear justification. This should include:

• A statement that the research involved only the author’s own nonhuman animals (or similar justification)
• Confirmation that no invasive procedures or undue stress were involved
• A brief description of how welfare, autonomy, and emotional safety were prioritized

Example statement:

“This study was conducted using the author’s own dogs in a home setting. No procedures beyond those used in routine training and enrichment were implemented. Institutional ethics approval was not required; however, all efforts were made to ensure the dogs’ comfort, agency, and emotional well-being throughout the study.”

If human participants were involved (e.g., interviews, surveys), authors must include information about informed consent, data handling and confidentiality procedures.

Submissions that do not meet acceptable ethical standards—or fail to provide adequate justification—may be returned for revision or declined.

Conflicts of Interest

A conflict of interest is any financial, professional, or personal relationship that could reasonably be perceived to influence the design, interpretation, or reporting of your work, even if you believe it did not.

Examples include (but are not limited to):

• You received payment, funding, honoraria, gifts, or in-kind support related to the work (including discounts, free products, sponsored travel, or equipment).
• You have a financial interest in a product, service, program, or company discussed (for example, you own the business, receive commission or affiliate income, hold shares, or have a paid consultancy role).
• You are employed by, or hold a leadership role in, an organization that could benefit from publication of the work.
• The submission evaluates, promotes, or compares a product or approach that you sell, market, license, or teach for profit.
• You have a personal or close professional relationship with a person or organization that could benefit from the findings.

How the Journal handles conflicts of interest

Declaring a conflict of interest does not automatically prevent publication. Conflicts are managed through transparency and, where appropriate, additional editorial safeguards.

Where a conflict is declared, the Journal may:

• require revisions to ensure neutral tone and remove promotional language
• request additional methodological detail, data transparency, and an explicit limitations statement
• reclassify the submission (for example, from original research to a practice note or commentary)
• publish the conflict of interest statement with the article

If a significant conflict is not disclosed and is later identified, the journal may publish a correction, issue an editorial notice, or retract the article, depending on the circumstances.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

The IAABC Foundation Journal maintains full editorial independence in its review and publication processes. Submissions arising from research conducted or supported by the IAABC Foundation are subject to the same peer-review standards as all other manuscripts. Any editors, reviewers, or contributors with a conflict of interest — including involvement in the research or affiliation with the Foundation — are recused from editorial decision-making for the relevant submission. All such relationships are disclosed transparently to ensure integrity, fairness, and credibility in the publication process.

The Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors must fully disclose any use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools at submission. This includes, but is not limited to, tools such as ChatGPT, GrammarlyGO, DALL·E, Midjourney, Perplexity, Paperpal, and similar platforms.

Disclosure Requirement

• Disclose AI use in an appropriate section of the manuscript (e.g., Acknowledgements or Methods).
• Specify the tool name and purpose of use.
• Omission may lead to editorial rejection or, if discovered post-publication, correction or retraction.

AI in writing and content generation

If AI was used to assist with the generation, editing, summarization, or translation of text, the authors must:

• explicitly acknowledge the use of the tool in the manuscript,
• retain full responsibility for the originality, accuracy, tone, and appropriateness of the content, and
• ensure that the final product reflects their own intellectual contributions and intentions.

AI tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot satisfy authorship criteria.

AI in Data Analysis

If AI tools were used to analyse, categorise, model, or visualise data:

• describe the tool in the Methods (name, function, version if known);
• state the extent of human oversight, parameter choices, and interpretation.

AI in Figures, Images, or Visual Content

When figures or images are generated or enhanced with AI:

• note this clearly in the figure caption or legend;
• include the AI tool name (and version if known);
• ensure compliance with copyright, licensing, privacy, and image-use policies;
• indicate any post-generation human editing or adaptation.

Required caption format

Figure X. [Concise description]. Generated with [AI Tool Name, Version if known].

Optional additions

• If substantially modified by the author: “Adapted from [AI Tool Name, Version if known].”
• If relevant, add brief method details in the caption or Methods (e.g., key prompts, seed settings) to aid transparency without revealing sensitive data.

Caption example

Figure 2. Conceptual diagram of canine learning stages. Generated with DALL·E 3 (OpenAI, 2025).

In-text note example (optional)

• “Figure 2, generated using DALL·E 3, illustrates the stages of canine learning.”

Summary Statement

AI tools may support elements of research and writing, but authors remain fully accountable for ideas, arguments, interpretations, data integrity, and ethical compliance. Transparent disclosure enables editors, reviewers, and readers to assess the work in proper context.

Questions about this policy may be directed to the Journal Director.

Standards of Practice

All authors are expected to uphold the ethical and professional standards set out in the Joint Standards of Practice. Submissions must reflect a commitment to evidence-based approaches to behavior consulting and training, and demonstrate respect for the welfare, well-being, and autonomy of both human and nonhuman learners.

Promotional Content

Submissions that reference organizational programs, services, or protocols are welcome when such content is presented within a broader educational, analytical, or evidence-based framework. Manuscripts must contribute to the advancement of knowledge or practice in the field and provide critical insight, reflection, or data relevant to a wider audience.

The Journal does not publish content that is primarily promotional in nature. This includes, but is not limited to:

• articles focused solely on a single organization or initiative without broader applicability;
• content that lacks substantive analysis, evaluation, or contextualization; and
• language that positions the submission as marketing or advertising material.

Professional tone and fair comment

The IAABC Foundation Journal does not publish content that disparages, targets, or undermines the reputation of identifiable individuals, organisations, or businesses. Critique is welcome when it is relevant, specific, and evidence-based, but it must focus on methods, claims, and documented outcomes rather than personal or reputational commentary.

Where a submission references commercial providers, schools, or programs, authors must:

• avoid hostile, accusatory, or inflammatory language
• avoid “call-out” style writing or adversarial comparisons
• ensure any critique is necessary, appropriately referenced, and framed in professional terms

Editors may request revisions to remove or anonymize identifying details, or may decline submissions that include reputational commentary about identifiable third parties.

Authors are expected to ensure that any mention of specific programs or organizations serves a clear educational purpose and is accompanied by objective discussion and critical examination. Submissions that are primarily promotional may also conflict with IAABC Foundation’s nonprofit status under IRS 501(c)(3) regulations.

Publication Malpractice Statement

The IAABC Foundation Journal maintains a zero-tolerance policy toward publication malpractice. Unethical behaviors such as plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, undeclared conflicts of interest, or misrepresentation of authorship are inconsistent with our values and will result in corrective action, including withdrawal of submissions or retraction of published work.

Editors and reviewers are obliged to report suspected misconduct. Authors are obliged to cooperate fully with investigations and to correct the record when errors are identified. Where malpractice is confirmed, the Journal will act in accordance with best practices in publishing ethics.

Our responsibility is not only to protect the integrity of the scholarly record but also to safeguard the trust between researchers, practitioners, and the wider community we serve.

Style and Formatting

We have an in-house style guide that is regularly updated with the latest information for authors. Please read or download it here: IAABC Foundation Journal Submissions Guidelines.

Writing Structure and Guidelines

Whether you're contributing to a professional conversation or making a formal academic contribution to the IAABC Foundation Journal, the same foundation applies: your writing must be formal, well-supported, clearly structured, and correctly referenced using APA 7th edition. Please read our Style Guide closely before submitting.

Basic Structure

All articles—regardless of type—benefit from following this general framework:

1. Title
2. Abstract and keywords
3. Introduction
4. Body (varies by article type)
5. Conclusion
6. References (APA 7th)
7. Bio

Creating a Title

• Be clear, specific, and informative.
• Avoid overly clever or vague titles.
• Subtitles can help explain focus (e.g., “Rebuilding Trust: A Case Study in Trauma-Informed Canine Care”).

What’s an Abstract?

An abstract is a concise summary of your article. It appears at the beginning but should be written last—after you’ve finished the article.
Its purpose: To give readers a quick overview of what your article is about, including your topic, approach, and key findings or insights. It helps readers decide whether your article is relevant to them.

What to Include in an Abstract:

• The topic or problem – What is this about and why does it matter?
• The approach or method – What did you do or examine?
• The key takeaway – What did you find, argue, or conclude?

Keep it brief—typically 150–250 words.

Keywords

Keywords are a short list of terms (usually 4–6) that describe the main ideas or focus areas of your article that come directly after your abstract.

Why they matter:

They help people find your article through search tools and databases.

Choose keywords that reflect:

• The species or population discussed
• The main concepts or methods
• Any key terms used in your argument or analysis

Example: canine agency, behavior consulting, emotional wellness, ethical training, animal-centered care, cat aggression, horse training.

Introduction

Your introduction should do three key things:

1. Contextualize the topic- What is the issue or topic you're addressing? Why does it matter?
2. Identify the purpose- What is your article doing? (e.g., reviewing, exploring a case, offering a practical how-to.)
3. Preview what’s to come- Give the reader a map of what to expect.

This is where a short review of the literature could help to support your work.

Paragraph Structure

A paragraph is not just a collection of sentences. It should form a complete idea.

Structure:

• Topic Sentence – the main idea.
• Support – evidence, examples, explanation.
• Wrap-up – link back to the main point or transition to the next.

Example: Dogs benefit significantly from environments that allow for autonomy and choice. When dogs are given opportunities to make decisions—such as selecting a preferred resting place or choosing between enrichment activities—they often display more exploratory behavior and fewer signs of stress (Littlewood et al., 2023; Smith et al., 2025). This aligns with broader welfare science principles, which highlight the psychological benefits of perceived control in both human and nonhuman animals. Recognizing the importance of agency invites practitioners to consider not just what nonhuman animals do, but how they feel about what they’re doing.

Body

This part varies by article type, but here's how to think about it:

Original Research

• Methods:
  Describe how the study was conducted. Include information about participants (human or nonhuman), materials, procedures, and data analysis. This section should be detailed enough for someone else to replicate your study.
  ✅ Think transparency and reproducibility.
• Results
  Present the findings of your study without interpretation. Use tables, figures, or graphs if needed, and focus on what the data show. Avoid explaining or analyzing the results here—that comes next.
  ✅ Think clarity and objectivity.
• Discussion
  Interpret your results in relation to existing research and your research question. Discuss implications, limitations, and possible future directions. This is where you explain what your findings mean and why they matter.
  ✅ Think significance and context.

Literature Review

• Thematic or Conceptual Organization
  Group studies by theme, argument, or theoretical approach rather than listing one study after another. This helps show patterns, agreements, contradictions, or developments over time.
  ✅ Think synthesis, not summary.
• Critical Engagement
  Don’t just describe what others have said—evaluate the strengths and limitations of different approaches. What’s missing? Where is the field headed?
  ✅ Think analysis and insight.
• Relevance and Contribution
  Make it clear why this review matters. What will readers take away? What questions or applications emerge from your synthesis?
  ✅ Think usefulness and direction.

Case Study

• Background
  Introduce the subject (species, individual, situation), relevant history, presenting issues, and context.
  ✅ Think orientation.
• Intervention or Process
  Describe what was done and why, including methods, reasoning, and any significant decisions made along the way. Incorporate citations where relevant.
  ✅ Think applied knowledge.
• Outcome
  Present the observed results, noting any changes in behavior, affect, or relationship. Discuss short-term and (if available) long-term impacts.
  ✅ Think honest reflection.
• Reflections and Ethical Considerations
  Reflect on challenges, dilemmas, unexpected outcomes, or lessons learned. Consider how ethics, power, or systemic issues may have influenced the case.
  ✅ Think humility and learning.

How-To Article

• Purpose and Scope
  Clearly define what the article is teaching or helping someone to do. Who is this article for? What need does it meet?
  ✅ Think accessibility and clarity.
• Evidence-Informed Foundation
  Briefly describe the underlying theory or research that supports the approach. Cite relevant literature to show it’s grounded in best practice.
  ✅ Think credibility.
• Step-by-Step Guidance
  Provide a clear, structured walkthrough of the process, including options, adaptations, and potential challenges. Use subheadings or numbered steps if helpful.
  ✅ Think practical application.
• Examples and Pitfalls
  Include brief examples, client scenarios, or trainer tips. Address common mistakes or misinterpretations to watch out for.
  ✅ Think usefulness and realism.

Book/Article Review

• Summary of the Work
  Provide a concise overview of the main themes, arguments, or structure of the work. Highlight what the author set out to do, and the key ideas or sections.
  ✅ Think orientation—not retelling.
• Critical Evaluation
  Evaluate the strengths and limitations. How well does the author support their arguments? Are there gaps, assumptions, or biases? Is the writing accessible and well-organized?
  ✅ Think fair, balanced critique—not just praise or criticism.
• Relevance and Application
  Discuss how the work contributes to current discussions in animal behavior, training, ethics, or welfare. Who would benefit from reading it? How might it be used in practice, research, or education?
  ✅ Think utility and audience.
• Final Thoughts
  Offer a succinct wrap-up. Would you recommend the book? For whom? Are there caveats to keep in mind?
  ✅ Think informed recommendation.

Writing Matters: Style, Tone, and Structure

One of the most common issues we see in submissions is weak writing—not due to lack of insight, but due to a lack of clarity, structure, and formality. If your writing sounds like a blog post, uses vague language, relies on bullet lists instead of paragraphs, or lacks flow between ideas, it will be hard to follow—no matter how important your message is.

What To Do – Write Like This:

• Use the active voice.
  ✅ “This method reduces fear-related behaviors.”
  It’s clearer and more direct than the passive: “Fear-related behaviors were reduced by this method.”
• Be specific and operationalize your language.
  ✅ “Stress-related behaviors such as lip licking, panting, or yawning were observed over a 20-minute interval.”
  This gives readers a measurable, observable set of indicators.
• Use a professional and academic tone.
  ✅ “These findings align with existing research on canine affective states (Smith et al., 2025).”
  Avoid casual phrases like “a bunch of,” “really good,” or “you should.”
• Write in full paragraphs—not lists.
  ✅ Paragraphs should contain a main idea, supporting evidence, and a concluding or linking sentence.

What Not To Do – Avoid This:

• Vague and meaningless language
  ❌ “Dogs were happier and the method was good for their brains.”
  This tells us nothing measurable, and it weakens your credibility.
• Informal tone or personal opinion
  ❌ “You can see the dog is upset.”
  This lacks objectivity. Describe the behavior, not your interpretation.
• No references or theoretical grounding
  ❌ If you're making a claim, back it up. If you're offering a model, explain where it comes from or how you developed it.
• One-sentence paragraphs or long bulleted lists
  ❌ These interrupt flow and prevent readers from seeing how your ideas connect.
  Academic writing is about reasoning through ideas—not just listing them.

Quick Tip:

If it sounds like something you’d say out loud to a friend, it probably needs revision!

Previous Next

Conclusion

Think of your conclusion as your final word to the reader. It should:

• Summarize the key points (not repeat them).
• Highlight the implications or significance.
• Suggest next steps or areas for further thought/action.

References

All references should follow APA 7th edition.

In-text citation examples:

• One author: (Jones, 2021)
• Two authors: (Lee & Singh, 2022)
• Three or more: (Taylor et al., 2023)

Reference list example:

References:

• Jones and Smith (2005). Dogs are amazing: Cats are too. Journal of Applied Logic, 12(34), 11-22. https://doi.12345/journal.00
• Wlodarczyk, J. (2018). The genealogy of obedience: Reading North American dog training literature, 1850s to 2000s. University of Chicago Press.

For help with your referencing, check this out.

Article Templates

📄 Case Studies

📄 Original Research

📄 Literature Reviews

📄 How-To Articles

📄 Book/Article Reviews

📄 Interviews

Required for All Submissions (Professional & Scholarly)

• ✅ Title


• ✅ Abstract (150–200 words)


• ✅ Author Bio(s) (50–100 words each)
  • Brief professional background, relevant experience, and credentials
  • Include institutional affiliations (if any)
  • ORCID iD optional (but encouraged for scholarly authors)
• ✅ Keywords (2–6)


• ✅ Main Article Text
  • Submit as a Word document (.docx preferred)
  • Subheadings encouraged for readability
  • APA 7th edition used for all formatting and referencing
• ✅ Images, Figures, and Tables
  • Submit as separate files (JPG, PNG, PDF, or TIFF)
  • Clearly labeled (e.g., Figure 1, Table 1)
  • Include captions and credit (if applicable)
  • Indicate placement in the article text: (Insert Figure 1 here)
• ✅ APA 7th Referencing
  • All articles must use APA 7th edition for in-text citations and references
• ✅ Ethics Statement (for original research or case studies)
  • If your article includes original research or case-based data collection (with humans or nonhuman animals), include a short ethics statement
  • Note institutional approval (if obtained), or justify why formal approval was not required
• ✅ Author Contact Information
  • Email address for editorial correspondence (not published unless requested)

Ready to Submit?

Once your manuscript is complete, submit this form: