Journal of Disability Research

JDR Editorial: A Journal Retrospective and Forward-Looking Review

Welcome to Volume 3 Issue 5 of the Journal of Disability Research (JDR). Let us start by emphasizing our continuing intention to publish innovative, high impact, insightful work open access, the output strongly connecting with prospects for improving the quality of life of those limited by disability. In the lead up to our first publication, just 20 months ago, we of course looked forward to receiving submissions from a wide variety of sources. We have not been disappointed. The highly multidisciplinary nature of the submissions has clearly given rise to challenges, not least that of seeking out those able and willing to evaluate the research quality. A strong corollary has been considerable enrichment in our pool of referees, with highly encouraging growth in this, leading to notable reduction in the average time taken in reaching a final decision. In line with the number of high impact manuscripts that we continue to receive, we have increased issue production, from four in 2023 to the present monthly rate, seeking to accommodate the clear desire for timely publication. Confidence increases as we have continued to observe a steep rise in attraction to the research contained within JDR, presently achieving some 50,000 views, also reflecting widespread global interest in JDR material (please see the figure below):

Located within the King Salman Centre for Disability Research (KSCDR), JDR makes its publications freely available, with publications also being free of publication charges, at least at this time. Not wishing to lose focus, it is of course our further intention to push for greater visibility, impact and recognition, moves that will inevitably lead to greater rates of rejection. The stimuli from this are intended to work to the benefit of all, anticipating not only the inclusion of one’s research in JDR but also that the work influences the world of disability research. JDR progress leads to our paying gratitude to all those who have made this possible. Nonetheless, the clear steer from KSCDR is towards our achieving greater prominence and impact upon those living with disability. We look forward to achieving such aims. Please work with us towards this.

I am very pleased to announce a new member of the Editorial Board of JDR, Prof. Dr. Peter V. Paul, The Ohio State University.

Peter V. Paul, PhD, is a Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University. He wears bilateral cochlear implants and has a son, who has Down syndrome and autism. One of Dr. Paul’s major professional responsibilities is the education of d/Deaf and hard of hearing students. His major research interests involve the areas of English language and literacy, and he has published extensively (over 270 publications), including eight different scholarly texts. Dr. Paul has received the College of Education 2000 Senior Research Award, the Richard and Laura Kretschmer National Leadership Award (2010), the Edward Fay Award (2022; Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for the Deaf), the College of Education’s Faculty Impact Award (2022), and the King Salman International Award for Disability Research (2022). Dr. Paul has served on several editorial boards of journals and is the current editor of the American Annals of the Deaf. 

D A Bradley, 29^th May 2024

JDR - Editor in Chief

Editor in Chief:

Prof. David Bradley

Orcid ID:

David Bradley-0000-0001-9485-5242-Orcid.org

Affiliation:

Sunway University, Malaysia. University of Surrey, UK.

Area of Research Interests:

Applications in Biomedical, Industrial, and Environmental Areas.

Home Page:

Prof David Bradley | University of Surrey

Prof. David Andrew Bradley | Sunway University

Editors:

Aim & Scope

Title: Journal for Disability Research (JDR)

e-ISSN: 2676-2633

Print ISSN: 1658-9912

1. Publisher: King Salman Centre for Disability Research (KSCDR)
2. Editor-in-Chief (EiC): David A. Bradley
3. Gold Open Access: All articles published with a CC BY 4.0 license
4. Frequency: 6-8 issues online
5. Language: English
6. Peer review model: Single-blind
7. Long-term archiving: All articles are archived with the CLOCKSS digital preservation service through ScienceOpen.

The Journal of Disability Research seeks to encourage greater understanding of the nature of disability, also in furthering ways and means to promote rehabilitation, identifying steps towards amelioration of the various many factors that can limit greater quality of life. The overarching aim of the journal is to provide an important communication channel in disseminating and exchanging ideas, reaching out to a global audience of interested parties, including, but not limited, to health practitioners and researchers. Accordingly, coverage will aim to include but not be limited to:

• Fundamental aspects of disability
• Research methodologies and theoretical perspectives
• Disability and rehabilitation practices and policy
• Assessment procedures
• Education and training

Empirical work and theoretical framing, both of which are welcome, should seek to contain discussion of the practical implications of the findings. The journal considers all original manuscripts that report scientifically sound research and provide a substantial amount of significant new information.

Coverage

Although not exhaustive some of the keywords covered by JDR are presented below. 

JDR – Humanities 

JDR – Medical 

JDR - Engineering and Technology

JDR – Education 

Publication types

JDR evaluates and publishes top-quality articles in the enumerated sections. These contributions are welcome in any of the following formats:

From time to time the Editorial Board will invite particular articles or editorials from experts in various parts of the world and consider the production of a supplement or special issue devoted to a particular subject or theme of major importance. Articles that help to promote education in all aspects of disability are encouraged.

JDR Word cloud

Submission Guidelines

The Journal of Disability Research seeks to encourage greater understanding of the nature of disability, also in furthering ways and means to promote rehabilitation, identifying steps towards amelioration of the various many factors that can limit greater quality of life. The overarching aim of the journal is to provide an important communication channel in disseminating and exchanging ideas, reaching out to a global audience of interested parties, including, but not limited, to health practitioners and researchers. Accordingly, coverage will aim to include but not be limited to:

• Fundamental aspects of disability
• Research methodologies and theoretical perspectives
• Disability and rehabilitation practices and policy
• Assessment procedures
• Education and training

Empirical work and theoretical framing, both of which are welcome, should seek to contain discussion of the practical implications of the findings.

The journal considers all original manuscripts that report scientifically sound research and provide a substantial amount of significant new information. All material presented must be acquired according to ethical standards and approved by legally appropriate ethical committee(s).

We encourage authors to be aware of standardised reporting guidelines when preparing their manuscripts:

• Case reports - CARE
• Diagnostic accuracy - STARD
• Observational studies - STROBE
• Randomized controlled trial - CONSORT
• Systematic reviews, meta-analyses - PRISMA
• Animal research / In vivo experiments - ARRIVE

How to submit a Manuscript 

Please check this short video that guides you on how to submit a manuscript to JDR.

Manuscript guidelines

Structure

The manuscript should include: Title page (title, authors, affiliations, contact, abstract, keywords (up to 10), conflict of interest statement); Main text (introduction, materials and methods, results, discussion, figures with captions, tables with captions) Acknowledgments (Funder), References.

There are no word limits for submissions but manuscripts should be concise and well-written.

Formatting

Manuscripts may be written in any standard program including Word and LaTeX. Authors will upload a pdf for peer review. Upon submission of revised manuscripts authors will also be requested to submit a pdf version with tracked changes. Only after final acceptance of a manuscript will the author be requested to submit Word or LaTeX files for typesetting.

There are no strict formatting requirements, but all manuscripts should follow the basic structure for reporting scientific research above.

References may be in any style, provided that formatting is consistent throughout. It is essential to include full author(s) name(s), journal or book title, article or chapter title, year of publication, volume and issue. DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) for each reference should be added wherever possible. They are not mandatory but strongly encouraged. Bibliography management tools such as EndNote, Zotero, Mendeley, Reference Manager are recommended.

Tables should be black and white/greyscale only and formatted as simply as possible for best accessibility. See some guidelines here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/tables/

Images should be submitted in high resolution for the typesetter after final acceptance of the manuscript.

Alt Text

To support the visually impaired, this journal includes Alt Text (alternative text), a short piece of text tagged to your figure to describe for readers contents of the image. This text can be used by screen readers to make the object accessible to people that cannot read or see the object.  Add Alt Text using Microsoft Word tools or as a separate figure caption. Further information on Alt Text for images can be found here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/tutorials/images/ .

Data

Authors will be required to fill out a data availability statement when submitting their manuscript. Data should be made available for peer reviewers, preferably in an open repository. Data may be cited with a DOI (Digital Object Identifier) in the reference section of the article. See the Data Citation: Guide to Best Practice.

Data policy

By publishing in the journal authors are required to make research data available to editors and reviewers, and to readers upon request. For some research data, deposition in repositories is required and this is encouraged for all research data. For some papers, the decision to publish will be affected by whether or not authors share their research data.

Required

• Data sharing via repositories for some research data
• Data availability statements
• Data sharing on request

Optional / Encouraged

• Data citation
• Data sharing via repositories for all research data
• Prepare and share Data Management Plans

Ethics

All material submitted to the journal must be acquired according to ethical standards and approved by legally appropriate ethical committee(s).

We encourage authors to be aware of standardised reporting guidelines when preparing their manuscripts. The automated Scientific Rigor report may find cases where authors have failed to follow guidelines, but it is the responsibility of the author to ensure that all ethical standards are adhered to:

• Case reports - CARE
• Diagnostic accuracy - STARD
• Observational studies - STROBE
• Randomized controlled trial - CONSORT
• Systematic reviews, meta-analyses - PRISMA
• Animal research / In vivo experiments - ARRIVE

In all questions of publication ethics the journal will refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines: https://publicationethics.org/

Reporting research that involves human subjects or data requires a declaration that the investigations were carried out following the rules of the Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/). Approval from the institutional review board (IRB) or other appropriate ethics committee must be obtained before undertaking the research to confirm the study meets national and international guidelines. A statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board must be included as ‘Institutional Review Board Statement’ article. For example: "All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before they participated in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX (Project identification code)." The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

The manuscript should follow the Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals and aim for the inclusion of representative human populations (sex, age and ethnicity) according to those recommendations. The terms sex and gender should be used correctly. Additionally, when studies describe groups by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, disease, etc., explanation regarding why such categorization was needed should be clearly stated in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Conflicts of intrest can include:

Financial conflicts of interest: This includes relationships with organizations or entities that may benefit financially, such as receiving honoraria, grants, participation in speaker bureaus, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or involvement in patent-licensing agreements. Any financial relationship that could influence the author’s judgment should be disclosed.

Non-financial conflicts of interest: Additionally, authors must disclose any non-financial interests that could impact their impartiality. These may include personal or professional relationships, affiliations, or strong beliefs related to the subject matter. Even if these interests do not directly involve financial gain, they can still create bias and should be transparently declared.

It is crucial that authors provide this information as early as possible, preferably at the time of manuscript submission, to ensure transparency. Full disclosure allows for any necessary steps to manage or mitigate potential conflicts, such as additional peer review or adjustments in the handling of the manuscript. Failure to disclose conflicts of interest may result in the retraction of the submission or further corrective actions.

Please also see ScienceOpen's policies on:

 Patient Privacy and Informed Consent - About ScienceOpen

ScienceOpen's Policy for Handling Retractions, Withdrawals, and Expressions of Concern - About ScienceOpen

Competing Interests - About ScienceOpen

Peer Review Policy

Each manuscript submission will be undergo an automated check for plagiarism and will reviewed by a least two subject experts in a single-blind workflow. Manuscripts that have been previously posted as preprints may submit open reviews of the preprint for consideration by the editorial team. Reviewers have the option of posting their reviews publicly on the ScienceOpen platform after an article has been published. All public reviews will receive a Crossref peer-review DOI.

Please note that the automated Scientific Rigor Check will also be taken into account in the editorial decision.

Please also consult the detailed peer reviewer instructions.

Scientific Rigor Check

The Journal of Disability Research (JDR) collaborates with SciScore to further raise the scientific rigor of the journal. SciScore’s advanced scientific rigor and reproducibility checks is integrated into the manuscript submission workflow. SciScore, a product of SciCrunch, is a pioneering tool that automatically evaluates manuscripts for key indicators of scientific rigor, such as sample size calculation, blinding, randomization procedures, comprehensive data reporting, cell line authentication or validation, and verifies the identity of the antibodies used, among other areas. By integrating SciScore into the ScienceOpen platform, JDR ensures that all submitted research undergoes a rigorous assessment process, thereby promoting transparency and reliability in scientific publications. 

What is scientific rigor check?

The SciScore core report is an automated assessment of a research paper’s methodologies and reporting that combines criteria from a variety of NIH-supported principles and guidelines, such as ARRIVE, CONSORT, and MDAR. It includes three tables and a reporting score. The report primarily covers rigor adherence and key resource identification to help promote reproducibility in life science research.

The reporting score - a score out of 10 - is a number researchers, journal editors, and funders can use to help them decide how rigorous and transparent a research manuscript is. The score is based on both rigor adherence and key resource identification within the materials and methods sections. A good score is essential to help ensure that interested parties have enough information to accurately judge the reproducibility of a research article.

How to get a better score on this section:

• Ensure that each criterion that is expected is addressed in your manuscript (refer to what is expected in the rigor items list above). In general though, adding more rigor criteria will increase points for this section.
  • Pro Tip: If SciScore expects that a criterion should be filled, but you do not believe that this is relevant, address it using a negative statement. Examples:
    • No subjects were excluded from our study.
    • We did not assess whether subjects were male or female because embryos were not genotyped.
    • Experimental subjects were not randomized into groups because this was deemed irrelevant to this study.
    • Experimenters were not blinded to the subject's genotype because knockout mice were visibly different from controls.
    • We did not check for sample sizes using a power analysis because our study does not report statistics between groups or within group variables.
    • No technical replication was completed because the Sasquatch was visible only once.
  • Possible Problems: SciScore does not recognize my sentence as fulfilling the criterion. In some cases such as power analysis, there are a surprisingly small number of example sentences in the published literature. This is a serious problem for science, but also for SciScore because text mining analysis depends on seeing lots of syntax patterns. Take a look at the sentences above, these syntax patterns were tested and should be recognized. Writing similar sentences should enable SciScore to recognize your sentence.
  • Tip for reviewers: If you see the word Sasquatch in the manuscript, consider rejecting the paper.

For a short video explaining scientific rigor check, please visit here.

For more information, please consult here. 

Author agreement

Open Access Publishing Agreement

By submitting my manuscript to the Journal of Disability Research published by the King Salman Center for Disability Research (hereafter the ‘Publisher’), I herewith grant permission to the Publisher to publish my article upon editorial acceptance under the following publishing agreement.

I hereby confirm that this is my original work and that

• I own the sole copyright in this work
• And/or I have obtained permission from all other Authors to execute this Agreement on their behalf if necessary

And that the work

• Has never been published before.

I understand that in granting this consent I am granting to the Publisher the Rights to publish under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license the Contribution in the English language in digital form; moral rights will be retained by the original Author/s and copyright will be held by the Author.

I agree to this Publishing Agreement, consent to execution and delivery of the Publishing Agreement electronically, and agree that confirming my consent electronically during the manuscript submission process with an electronic signature shall be given the same legal force as a handwritten signature.

Terms of Use

1. The Contribution will be made Open Access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY License) which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the Contribution is properly cited.
2. The Journal (and Publisher) reserves the right to require changes to the Contribution, including changes to the length of the Contribution, as a condition of its acceptance. The Journal (and Publisher) reserves the right, notwithstanding acceptance, not to publish the Contribution if for any reason such publication would in the reasonable judgment of the Journal (and Publisher), result in legal liability or violation of journal ethical practices. If the Journal (or Publisher) decides not to publish the Contribution, the Author is free to submit the Contribution to any other journal from any other publisher.
3. As above, the final Contribution will be made Open Access under the terms of the CC-BY license. Reproduction, posting, transmission, or other distribution or use of the final Contribution in whole or in part in any medium by the Author as permitted by this Agreement requires a citation to the Journal suitable in form and content as follows: (Title of Contribution, Author, Journal Title and Volume/issue, Digital Object Identifier (DOI), Date). Links to the final published Contribution should be provided following the guidance below on best practices.

Article Processing Charges (APC)

A fee of 1100 USD will be charged for all publications accepted to the journal to offset the costs of publication. This fee must be paid after final editorial approval and before the typesetting process.  Authors will be provided with a payment link and instructions after acceptance.

Retained Rights

The Author retains all proprietary rights in addition to copyright, such as patent rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in the Contribution.

Author's Representations

The Author(s) certify that they have participated sufficiently in the intellectual content, conception, and design of this work or the analysis and interpretation of the data (when applicable), as well as the writing of the manuscript, to take public responsibility for it and have agreed to have their name listed as a contributor. The Author(s) believe the manuscript represents valid work. Neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under their authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere, except as described in the cover letter. The Author(s) certify that all the data collected during the study is presented in this manuscript and no data from the study has been or will be published separately. If requested by the editors, the Author(s) will provide the data/information or will cooperate fully in obtaining and providing the data/information on which the manuscript is based, for examination by the editors or their assignees. Financial interests, direct or indirect, that exist or may be perceived to exist for individual contributors in connection with the content of this paper have been disclosed in the cover letter. Sources of outside support for the project are named in the cover letter.

Use of Information

The Author(s) acknowledges that, during the term of this Agreement and thereafter (for as long as necessary), the Publisher and the Journal may process the Author’s data, including storing or transferring data outside of the country of the Contributor’s residence, to communicate with the Author(s) and that the Publisher has a legitimate interest in processing the Author(s)’ personal data. By entering into this Agreement, the Author(s) agree to the processing of personal data (and, where applicable, confirms that the Author has obtained permission from all other authors to process their data). The Publisher and the Journal shall comply with all applicable laws, statutes, and regulations relating to data protection and privacy and shall process such personal data.

Retraction Policy

Journal of Disability Research follows ScienceOpen's retraction policy. Please follow the link for details: https://about.scienceopen.com/scienceopens-retraction-policy/

Open Access

This is an Open Access journal which means that all content is freely available without charges to access the full text of articles. All articles are published in a "Gold" Open Access model  with a CC BY 4.0 license. You are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author(s). You must give appropriate credit to the author(s), provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. 

As the copyright is retained by the author, you are welcome and encouraged to share your work as widely as possible including uploading it to institutional and subject repositoires and sharing from your webpage and more.

Article Processing Charges (APC)

A fee of 1100 USD will be charged for all publications accepted to the journal to offset the costs of publication. This fee must be paid after final editorial approval and before the typesetting process.  Authors will be provided with a payment link and instructions after acceptance.

Editorial Policy

1. Purpose and Scope

The purpose of these editorial policies is to ensure the integrity, transparency, and quality of the publication process at the Journal of Disability Research. The scope includes all aspects of manuscript submission, peer review, editing, and publication.

2. Manuscript Submission

• Originality: All submissions must be original work and not under consideration by any other journal. Authors must confirm that the manuscript has not been published previously.
• Ethics: Authors must adhere to ethical guidelines regarding plagiarism, fabrication of data, and proper citation of sources. Manuscripts involving human subjects must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki.
• Format: Manuscripts should follow the journal's formatting guidelines, including structure, length, and referencing style.

3. Peer Review Process

• Single-Blind Review: The Journal of Disability Research employs a single-blind review process, where reviewers remain anonymous.
• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and lack of conflict of interest with the manuscript. The journal strives for diversity and inclusivity in its reviewer pool.
• Timeliness: Reviewers are expected to provide their evaluations within a specified timeframe to ensure a prompt decision-making process. Delays should be communicated promptly.

4. Editorial Decision

• Criteria: Decisions on manuscripts are based on originality, significance, rigor, and clarity of presentation. The potential impact and contribution to the field of disability research are also considered.
• Communication: Editors must communicate decisions clearly and provide constructive feedback to authors. Revisions should be requested when necessary.
• Appeals: Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals should be addressed to the Editor-in-Chief and will be reviewed by an independent editorial board member.

5. Conflict of Interest

• Disclosure: Editors, reviewers, and authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. This includes financial, personal, or professional affiliations that could influence the work.
• Management: Conflicts of interest are managed by reassigning the manuscript to another editor or reviewer as necessary. The journal maintains transparency in the disclosure of conflicts.

6. Ethical Standards

• Compliance: Manuscripts must comply with ethical standards, including informed consent, animal welfare, and ethical considerations in disability research. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval must be documented for studies involving human subjects.
• Misconduct: Any allegations of misconduct, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical breaches, will be investigated thoroughly. Appropriate actions, including retraction or correction, will be taken when necessary.

7. Data Sharing and Reproducibility

• Data Availability: Authors are encouraged to make their data available in a public repository where feasible. Data availability statements should be included in the manuscript.
• Reproducibility: Manuscripts should include sufficient detail to allow replication of the study by other researchers. Transparency in methodology is essential.

8. Publication Ethics

• Correction and Retraction: Errors, once identified, should be corrected promptly. Serious ethical breaches may lead to retraction of the published article, with a clear explanation provided to readers.
• Authorship: All authors listed must have made a significant contribution to the research and must approve the final manuscript. Authors should adhere to the guidelines for authorship and contributorship.

9. Confidentiality

• Privacy: The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the review process. Editors must also maintain confidentiality regarding manuscript content.
• Data Protection: Personal data obtained during the submission and review process must be handled in compliance with data protection regulations. The privacy of research participants must be protected.

10. Editorial Independence

• Decision-Making: Editorial decisions are made independently of the journal’s owners or sponsors. The integrity and objectivity of the editorial process are paramount.
• Integrity: Editors are expected to act with integrity and without bias, ensuring that all manuscripts are evaluated based on their academic merit and contribution to the field.

11. Transparency

• Policies: Editorial policies and processes are publicly available on the journal’s website. Authors and readers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with these guidelines.
• Acknowledgments: Contributions from reviewers, editors, and other parties involved in the publication process are acknowledged appropriately.

12. Continuous Improvement

• Feedback: Feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers is encouraged and used to improve the editorial process. Regular surveys and feedback mechanisms are in place.
• Training: Editors and reviewers are provided with regular training on ethical standards, peer review best practices, and advancements in scientific publishing.

Process for Handling Cases Requiring Corrections, Retractions, and Editorial Expressions of Concern

1. Initial Identification and Reporting

• Source of Issue: Cases can be identified by authors, readers, reviewers, or editorial staff.
• Reporting: Report the issue to the editorial office via email or an online form. Provide all relevant details, including the article title, authors, and specific concerns.

2. Preliminary Assessment

• Assign to Editor: The case is assigned to the relevant editor-in-chief or managing editor.
• Initial Review: The editor conducts a preliminary review to determine the nature and validity of the issue.
• Decision to Proceed: If the issue warrants further investigation, the editor will initiate a formal review process.

3. Formal Review Process

• Committee Formation: Form a committee including senior editorial staff, subject matter experts, and if necessary, an external advisor.
• Author Notification: Inform the corresponding author(s) of the issue and request a response or clarification.
• Data Collection: Gather all relevant data, correspondence, and evidence related to the case.
• Analysis: The committee reviews the evidence, the authors' response, and any additional information.

4. Decision Making

• Outcome Determination: Based on the review, the committee will decide whether the case requires a correction, retraction, or an editorial expression of concern.
• Consensus: Aim for a consensus among committee members. If consensus cannot be reached, a majority vote will decide the outcome.

5. Implementation of Decision

• Corrections: Minor errors that do not affect the overall results or conclusions of the paper. Publish a correction notice linked to the original article.
• Retractions: Serious issues such as data fabrication, plagiarism, or major errors that invalidate the results. Publish a retraction notice explaining the reason, and mark the original article as retracted.
• Editorial Expressions of Concern: Unresolved issues or cases pending further investigation. Publish an expression of concern linked to the original article.

6. Publication and Communication

• Transparency: Clearly communicate the decision and rationale in the published notice.
• Author Involvement: Offer authors the opportunity to agree with or respond to the notice.
• Update Records: Ensure all versions of the article, including online databases, are updated to reflect the correction, retraction, or expression of concern.

7. Post-Publication Follow-Up

• Monitoring: Monitor the affected articles and follow up on any new information or developments.
• Feedback Mechanism: Provide a mechanism for readers to report any further concerns related to the case.

8. Policy Review and Improvement

• Annual Review: Conduct an annual review of the correction and retraction policy to identify areas for improvement.
• Training: Regularly train editorial staff on the latest best practices for handling corrections, retractions, and editorial expressions of concern.

Informed Consent Policy

Purpose: The purpose of this informed consent policy is to ensure that all research involving human participants published in the Journal of Disability Research (JDR) adheres to ethical standards that protect the rights, dignity, and welfare of the participants. This policy outlines the requirements for obtaining and documenting informed consent from research participants.

Scope: This policy applies to all research articles submitted to the JDR that involve human participants, including but not limited to clinical studies, surveys, interviews, and observational research.

Policy:

1. Informed Consent Requirement:

Researchers must obtain informed consent from all participants prior to their involvement in the study. This consent must be voluntary, informed, and documented.

1. Elements of Informed Consent:

Information: Participants must be provided with comprehensive information about the study, including its purpose, procedures, risks, benefits, and the nature of their involvement.

Comprehension: The information must be presented in a manner that is understandable to the participants, considering their language, literacy level, and cognitive abilities.

Voluntariness: Participation must be voluntary, free from coercion, undue influence, or any form of pressure.

1. Documentation of Informed Consent:

Informed consent must be documented in writing. The consent form must include:

• • • A statement confirming that the participant has read (or had read to them) and understood the information provided.
    • A statement confirming that the participant has had the opportunity to ask questions and has received satisfactory answers.
    • The participant’s signature and date.
    • The signature of the researcher obtaining the consent and the date

1. Ethics Committee Approval:
   • All studies involving human participants must receive prior approval from an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB). A copy of the approval letter must be submitted with the manuscript.
2. Special Considerations:
   • For vulnerable populations (e.g., children, individuals with cognitive impairments), additional safeguards must be in place to ensure their protection. Informed consent must be obtained from a legal guardian or representative, in addition to the participant’s assent where applicable.
   • In cases where informed consent is not feasible (e.g., retrospective studies using existing data), authors must provide a justification and evidence of ethical approval for the waiver of consent.
3. Reporting Informed Consent in Manuscripts:
   • Authors must include a statement in the methods section of the manuscript confirming that informed consent was obtained from all participants. This statement should also specify that the study received ethics committee or IRB approval.
4. Confidentiality and Anonymity:
   • Researchers must ensure the confidentiality and anonymity of participants. Identifiable information should not be published unless explicit consent has been obtained for this purpose.
5. Breach of Policy:

Failure to comply with this informed consent policy may result in the rejection of the manuscript or retraction of the published article.

Advertising Policy

1. Purpose

The purpose of this advertising policy is to ensure that all advertisements in the Journal of Disability Research are appropriate, ethical, and do not compromise the integrity of the journal.

2. General Principles

• Separation of Content and Advertising: Advertising content must be clearly distinguishable from editorial content. Advertisements should not appear in a way that could be confused with the editorial content of the journal.
• Relevance and Appropriateness: Advertisements must be relevant to the journal's audience and must adhere to professional and ethical standards, especially considering the sensitive nature of disability research.

3. Acceptance Criteria

• Truthfulness and Accuracy: Advertisements must be truthful and not misleading. All claims must be substantiated with clear and credible evidence.
• Non-discrimination: Advertisements must not contain content that discriminates based on race, gender, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, or age.
• No Endorsement Implied: Acceptance of advertisements does not imply endorsement by the Journal of Disability Research, its editors, or its publisher.

4. Prohibited Content

• Inappropriate Products: Advertisements for products or services that are illegal, unethical, or deemed inappropriate for the journal’s audience are prohibited.
• Conflict of Interest: Advertisements that present a conflict of interest with the editorial policies or integrity of the journal are not allowed.
• Offensive Content: Advertisements containing offensive, defamatory, or otherwise unacceptable content will be rejected.

5. Review and Approval

• Pre-approval Process: All advertisements must be reviewed and approved by the editorial board before publication to ensure compliance with the journal’s policies.
• Rejection: The editorial board reserves the right to reject any advertisement that does not comply with the journal’s policies or that is deemed inappropriate.

6. Placement and Frequency

• Editorial Integrity: The placement of advertisements must not interfere with the editorial integrity of the journal. Advertisements should be positioned to avoid any confusion with the journal’s content.
• Clear Labeling: All advertisements must be clearly labeled as such to avoid confusion with editorial content.
• Frequency: The frequency and volume of advertisements should be controlled to ensure they do not overwhelm the journal's editorial content.

7. Digital and Online Advertising

• Accessibility: All digital and online advertisements must be accessible to individuals with disabilities, following the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
• Pop-ups and Interstitials: The use of intrusive formats such as pop-ups and interstitial ads is discouraged.
• Data Protection: Advertisers must comply with relevant data protection laws and regulations, ensuring that the privacy of the journal’s readers is respected.

8. Sponsored Content

• Disclosure: Any sponsored content or advertorials must be clearly labeled to distinguish them from the journal’s editorial content.
• Quality and Relevance: Sponsored content must meet the same standards of quality and relevance as the journal’s editorial content.

9. Ethical Considerations

• Conflict Resolution: Any disputes regarding advertising content will be resolved by the editorial board in accordance with the journal’s ethical guidelines.
• Transparency: The journal’s advertising policy must be transparent and publicly available on the journal’s website.

10. Continuous Improvement

• Feedback: Feedback from readers and advertisers is encouraged and will be used to continually improve the advertising policy.
• Regular Review: The advertising policy will be reviewed regularly to ensure it remains current and effective in maintaining the journal’s integrity.

Reviewer Instructions 

In whatever form, peer review is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. The process necessitates that all parties involved conduct themselves properly and ethically, and it heavily relies on trust. Reviews should result from an in-depth and thorough evaluation of a research manuscript. Reviews should aim to help editors decide if an article is scientifically sound, meets academic standards and is worth reading in its present form. They can either encompass the entire paper of just a single aspect. 

How to submit a review on ScienceOpen when you are invited by journal editors

When you receive an invitation to review an article on ScienceOpen, a link to the article, a proposed due date, and information on how to submit your review will be provided.  

Submitting a review: 

When you follow the link in the invitation email and start reviewing, first you will be asked to evaluate the paper in four different categories from 1 star (poor) to 5 stars (excellent). The categories are as follows: 

1. Level of importance:  

• Is the publication of relevance for the academic community and does it provide important insights?  

• Does the work represent a new approach or new findings in comparison with other publications in the field? (Note that this doesn’t preclude publication, as the paper has already been published!)

2. Level of validity:  

• Is the hypothesis clearly formulated?  

• Is the argumentation stringent?  

• Are the data sound, well-controlled and statistically analysed?  

• Is the interpretation balanced and supported by the data?  

• Are appropriate and state-of-the-art methods used? (Note that ScienceOpen also accepts publication of “negative” results.) 

3. Level of completeness:  

• Do the authors reference the appropriate scholarly context?  

• Do the authors provide or cite all information to follow their findings or argumentation?  

• Do they cite all relevant publications in the field? 

4. Level of comprehensibility:  

• Is the language correct and easy to understand for an academic in the field? Are the figures well displayed and captions properly described?  

• Is the article systematically and logically organized? 

You will be provided with a space to paste in your written review. You may choose to use the questions above as prompts for your written review. Alternatively, you may provide your own format and fill in the content as you see fit. We trust that you will strive to make your review constructive, yet critical. 

Basic principles for reviewers according to Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (2013): 

Peer reviewers should: 

• only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner 

• respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal 

• not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others 

• declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest 

• not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations 

• be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments 

• acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavour and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner 

• provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise 

• recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct.

Please keep in mind during the peer review process: 

• reply without purposeful delay and within a reasonable timeframe, particularly if you are unable to complete the review. 

• state explicitly the areas for which you have the necessary experience, if any, and whether you lack the subject matter expertise needed to complete the review or can just evaluate a part of the text. 

• only accept a manuscript for review if you are reasonably certain you can return a review within the suggested or mutually agreed timeframe, and quickly notify the journal if you need an extension. 

• disclose any potentially competing or conflicting interests (such as those that are intellectual, professional, political, financial, personal, or religious); if in doubt about whether anything qualifies as a relevant interest, they should consult the journal. 

• follow the journals' regulations about circumstances that they deem to be in conflict with reviewing. If no guidance is given, you should notify the journal if you have a close personal relationship with any of the authors such as working at the same institution (or plan to join or apply for a job there), are or have been mentors, mentees, close collaborators, or joint grant holders recently (e.g., within the past three years). 

• make sure recommendations for substitute reviewers are based on qualifications and aren't motivated by personal gain or the desire to see a particular result (positive or negative) for the submission. 

• decline to accept a manuscript review merely for the purpose of seeing it and without planning to write a review. 

•  if you don't think you can give an objective, fair review, you should decline. 

• refuse to evaluate if you have any personal connection to any of the work or reporting in the submission. 

• refuse to assess a manuscript that is requested that is strikingly identical to one they are working on or that is being considered by another publication. 

• decline to review if you don’t find proper the peer review model of the journal. 

Please prepare your report in accordance with: 

• subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript. 

• objectivity and being constructive in your reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. 

• not make personal comments or unfounded accusations. 

• not suggest that authors include citations to your (or your associates’) work to increase your (or your associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of your or your associates’ work. Reference suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons. 

• providing specific criticisms and evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors. (COPE, 2013).