---
name: newms-submission
description: Use for the final preflight before submitting a New Media & Society (NM&S) manuscript via Sage Track — word target, abstract, keywords, masking, SAGE Harvard referencing, ethics statement, and ORCID. Runs the checklist; it does not draft content.
---

# Submission Preflight (newms-submission)

The last gate before upload. NM&S submits through **Sage Track** at
`mc.manuscriptcentral.com/nms`. This skill is a mechanical preflight: format, length, masking, and the
ethics/data statements that an anonymous, ethics-attentive interdisciplinary journal expects. **Verify
every upload-field prompt on the live SAGE author-instructions page** because details can change.
As of 2026-09-14: **Crystal Abidin** (Curtin University) and **Christian Katzenbach** (University of
Bremen) are the co-Editors-in-Chief since July 2026, succeeding Steve Jones (Editor 2006–June 2026).
Re-verified 2026-09-14; confirm the current masthead on the SAGE editorial-board page before submitting.

## When to trigger

- The manuscript is written and analyses are final; you are about to upload
- Doing a final masking, length, and policy compliance sweep
- Assembling the file set Sage Track will ask for

## Hard preflight checklist

- [ ] **Word target 8,000** — *all text including notes, references, tables, and charts*. Submissions
      more than a few hundred words over the target are not considered. Report your count.
- [ ] **Abstract 150 words**, unstructured, stating purpose, approach, and findings.
- [ ] **Keywords — at least 4**, after the abstract.
- [ ] **Masked for anonymous review** — no author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, or
      self-identifying phrasing in the manuscript; provide a separate title page. You may self-cite
      without naming yourself. (Confirm current masking format on the live page.)
- [ ] **SAGE Harvard referencing** — author-date in text, alphabetical reference list; consistent.
- [ ] **Research-ethics statement** — IRB/ethics approval, consent, anonymization, and (if used) scraping
      method/ToS handled per `newms-transparency-and-data`.
- [ ] **Data-availability statement** — what is/ isn't shared and why, consistent with consent/ToS.
- [ ] **ORCID ID** for the submitting author; coauthors should link ORCID IDs before acceptance.
- [ ] **Exhibits anonymized** — screenshots redacted, quotes reverse-search-resistant.
- [ ] **Figures/tables** legible, self-contained, and counted toward the word target.

## File set (typical Sage Track; confirm at upload)

| File | Contents |
|------|----------|
| Anonymized manuscript | masked, with abstract, keywords, body, references, tables/figures |
| Title page (separate) | authors, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding, corresponding-author contact, word count |
| Figures (if separate) | high-resolution, captioned |
| Supplementary (if any) | clearly limited; not a dumping ground to evade the word target |
| Cover letter (if invited) | brief fit statement; not required to argue the whole case |

## Volatile specifics to verify

Confirm Sage Track upload fields, optional open-access fee details, and the current masthead on the
live SAGE pages. See [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md)
for the 2026-06-20 official-source baseline.

## Worked micro-example (illustrative)

```
Preflight on a digital-ethnography paper:
- Count: 8,240 words incl. refs/tables → over target; cut a redundant quote table + trim lit review.
- Masking: removed "in our prior fieldwork (Author 2023)" → "in prior fieldwork (Author 2023)".
- Ethics statement: IRB ref + paraphrased-quotes note added; ToS for scraped posts disclosed.
- Data statement: "Coding scheme + code available; identifiable data withheld per consent and platform ToS."
- Result: within target, masked, ethics + data statements present → ready for Sage Track.
```

## Calibration anchors

- **The word target is all-inclusive and firm.** References and tables count; being a few hundred over
  can mean no review.
- **Mask before you upload.** One self-identifying phrase can compromise anonymous review.
- **Ethics + data statements are not optional polish** at an online-data journal — write them deliberately.

## Anti-patterns

- Submitting over the word target because "tables shouldn't count" (they do)
- An unmasked manuscript or a forgotten self-identifying acknowledgment
- Mixed or non-SAGE-Harvard references
- No research-ethics or data-availability statement on a platform-data study
- Trusting remembered limits instead of the live page during the editorial transition

## Output format

```
【Length】words incl. notes/refs/tables vs. 8,000 target [count]
【Abstract / keywords】150 words / ≥4 keywords? [Y/N]
【Masked】no identifying info; separate title page? [Y/N]
【Referencing】SAGE Harvard, consistent? [Y/N]
【Ethics + data statements】present and accurate? [Y/N]
【Live check】Sage Track fields, OA choices, and masthead checked? [Y/N]
【Next】newms-rebuttal (after a decision)
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`templates/checklist.md`](templates/checklist.md) — the copy-paste submission preflight checklist
- [`../../resources/official-source-map.md`](../../resources/official-source-map.md) — portal, limits, masking, referencing facts