Index & Database Title Lists

Most databases provide a list of journals that are indexed. The following links connect to pages that provide title lists for indexes in a number of different fields, including indexes that are available through the WIU Libraries as well as other important subject indexes (such as the Citation Indexes from Thomson Reuters). These lists could be useful in finding journals in a given subject area. In particular, look at the journals that are given priority or listed as core journals in an index.

Why is indexing essential?

  • Indexing will help your journal achieve its main purpose of being accessible to a wide audience.
  • Being accessible in turn will improve your journal’s reputation as a reliable source of high-quality information in your field.
  • Database research is the first activity researchers undertake as part of their study, and they naturally look to established, well-known databases. Thus, being indexed in a known database in your field will help increase your journal’s readership.

A COMPARISON BETWEEN ELECTRONIC AND PRINTED JOURNALS

 

Vladimir Trajkovski
Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Philosophy, University “Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Skopje, Republic of Macedonia
E-mail: vladotra@fzf.ukim.edu.mk
Received: 05-May-2018
Revised: 12-May-2018
Accepted: 14-May-2018
Online first 15-May-2018

Abstract

The number of journals is rapidly rising worldwide. There is public debate about published articles comparing the costs, benefits, and various pros and cons of printed versus electronic full-text journals. The advancement of online journals during recent years has given librarians a powerful new resource to support learning and research.
This article explores issues relating to the print publication process and the electronic publication process in order to clarify the unique advantages and disadvantages of each media. Most commercial sites are subscription-based, or allow pay-per-view access. Many universities subscribe to electronic journals to provide access to their students and faculty, and it is generally also possible for individuals to subscribe. An increasing number of journals are now available with open access, requiring no subscription. This is the case with the Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities. Most working paper archives and articles on personal homepages are free; as are collections in institutional repositories and subject repositories. One of the great advantages of electronic journals is the possibility of acquiring article-level metrics.
Printed journals are portable and convenient, don’t require a device to read, have a high graphical resolution (easier to read) and are self-archiving. Printed journals should continue to survive, but only with a decrease in production and changes in content to suit more restricted niches left in the wake of the electronic journals.

Key words: e-journal, electronic journal, printed journal, academic journal, open access (OA), information technology (IT).

Citation:

Trajkovski, V. A Comparison Between Electronic and Printed Journals. Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities. https://doi.org/10.26407.2018jrtdd.1.1

Copyright ©2018
Trajkovski, V. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Corresponding address:
Vladimir Trajkovski
Institute of Special Education and Rehabilitation, Faculty of Philosophy, “Ss Cyril and Methodius” University, 1000 Skopje, Republic of Macedonia.
E-mail: vladotra@fzf.ukim.edu.mk

Online First

How to submit your manuscript

How to submit your manuscript

1. You must be registered in our system. You can do it HERE.

2. Login to the system through Login Form you can find on left side.

3. Go to Submit your manuscript (you must be logged in to see Submit form)

4. Fill all the required fields in the form (see pictures)

5. Allowed extensions for attachment are .doc and .docx

6. Final step is to click Send button on the bottom

Peer Review Process in JRTDD

The manuscripts submitted to “Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities” will be reviewed for possible publication on the understanding that they have been submitted only to “Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities” and have not been published, simultaneously submitted, or accepted for publication elsewhere.

Once a manuscript is submitted to “Journal for ReAttach Therapy and Developmental Diversities”, it is sent to an external reviewers who will give the necessary recommendations according to which the article is published unaltered or is sent back to the author for corrections as advised by the reviewer, or rejected. The author is informed regarding the same. Once the article is fit for publication it is published both in print and online journal.

The peer-review process is double blinded, i.e., the reviewers do not know who the authors of the manuscript are and the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer-reviewers are.

Why to publish in JRTDD?

There are several reasons why one should publish in JRTDD.

  • Editorial board has great experience in publishing;
  • Rapid publication;
  • Rapid availability of your document world-wide;
  • Studies show, that Open-Access papers are cited more than printed articles;
  • Fast and professional peer review. JRTDD is run by a team of experienced editors who have previously worked in publishing. The professional editors work closely with academic editors and peer reviewers to provide authors with an efficient, fair, and constructive review process;
  • Quick review: The review decision will be made within two months from the date of submission.
  • Indexing of your document which can be easily found in library catalogs, OAI archives and search engines on the net.
  • Not for profit journal;
  • Liberality in terms of language: The journal will not reject a paper merely based on the language. The authors will be guided to improve the manuscript in such case.
  • We have no page charges or submission fees, and you have free use of color figures.
  • Our mission is to advance excellence in the social sciences and humanities, and our status as a society publisher allows us to focus on making that a reality. We re-invest all surplus back into the global scientific community, providing ongoing support for authors, researchers, and educators in every field of psychology, rehabilitation sciences  and related disciplines.

JRTDD Guidelines for Reviewers

  1. About JRTDD

JRTDD is open-access journal from social sciences and humanities field, providing an innovative and influential venue for research and comment on the major challenges to human health and treatment of developmental disabilities worldwide. We specifically seek to publish papers which have relevance across a range of settings and that address the major environmental, social, and political determinants of health, as well as the biological.

JRTDD has priority areas and we make decisions based on whether papers are likely to directly and substantially affect clinical practice or public health policy, or have implications of broad general interest for the direction of future, directly clinically relevant research. In addition, we seek to publish papers that address important topics in the ethics and reporting of social sciences research.

JRTDD is published twice a year online.

  1. Criteria for Publication

Manuscripts should represent a substantial advance in social sciences and humanities or practice within the scope of the journal as noted above in terms of:

  • Originality.
  • Importance to researchers or practitioners in the field.
  • Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field.
  • Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions.
  • Conducted according to the highest ethical standards.
  1. The Review Process

Submitted manuscripts will be assigned to at least of the JRTDD editors. If the paper is deemed to be within the scope of the journal with regard to content and of a minimum quality an academic editor with expertise in the relevant area, usually one of our editorial board, is then also assigned to the paper. Also we found reviewers from the field of the topic of the manuscript. The editor-in-chief and editorial board member will promptly assess the manuscript and will decide if it is likely to meet the requirement of providing a major advance in a particular field and describing a sufficient body of work to support that claim; if so, it will be sent out for peer review. The professional and academic editors then together make a decision based on the reviewers’ comments. There are several types of decision possible:

  • Accept the manuscript as submitted.
  • Accept it with minor revision.
  • Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached.
  • Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.

When differences of opinion occur between reviewers, the professional editor and the academic editor weigh all comments and arrive at a balanced decision based on all comments. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible. A review that clearly outlines reasons both for and against publication is therefore of as much, or even more, value as one that makes a direct recommendation.

If reviewers appear to disagree fundamentally, the editors may choose to share all the reviews with each of the reviewers and by this means elicit additional comment that may help the editors to make a decision. The academic and professional editors then assess the recommendations and comments of the reviewers alongside comments by the authors and material that may not have been made available to those reviewers.

When a paper has been revised in response to comments by reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, we ask reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. We request that reviewers make themselves available to provide such follow-up advice. We are nevertheless aware that reviewers do not wish to be involved in extended discussions over papers, and we keep such consultations to a minimum while still allowing authors a fair hearing.

  1. Reviewer Selection

We decide on reviewers for a particular manuscript based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations of academic editors, and the professional editor’s own knowledge of a reviewer.

As part of our editorial procedure, we regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information.

  1. Writing the Review

The purpose of the review is to provide the academic and professional editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication in JRTDD. In the interests of complete transparency we do not allow confidential comments for the editors. Please therefore assume that all the comments you make will be transmitted to the authors. The best possible review would answer the following questions:

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?
  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?
  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
  • Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
  • If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?

If you intend to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review form. However, we prefer to have these marked-up files in Word format rather than PDF to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author. Please remember to anonymize your comments. Review process is double blinded.

  1. Other Questions for Consideration

In the case of manuscripts deemed worthy of consideration, we would appreciate additional advice from the reviewer on the following:

  • Is the manuscript clearly enough written so that it is understandable to non-specialists? If not, how could it be improved? (Please concentrate on matters of organization and content and not on grammatical or spelling errors that will be corrected by our copyeditor after acceptance.)
  • Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims without overselling them?
  • Have the authors cited the previous literature appropriately?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
  • JRTDD encourages authors to publish detailed methods as supporting information online. Do any particular methods used in the manuscript warrant such publication?
  1. Peer Review for Journal articles

The best possible review of an article in the JRTDD Journal section would consider a different set of questions:

Relevance and interest

  • Is the article relevant and of interest to a general international psychology, special educational and rehabilitational audience?
  • Does it address a health topic that matters on a global scale? Will it be relevant to readers in both high and low income countries?

Impact

  • Do you think this article will have an impact—upon clinicians, researchers, health policymakers, or the broader public? Will it be widely read, disseminated, and cited? Could it help to improve public and/or global health? Will readers find it of interest?

Content

  • Does the article contain any inaccurate information? Are the authors’ claims evidence-based?
  • Have the authors missed out anything important—including important research findings—on the topic they’re writing about? Please provide details of anything important that is missing.

Originality

  • Does this article contain enough new information to warrant publication? Does it take the discussion and debate on this topic in a novel direction?

Presentation

  • Is the article well written, clear, and easy for a non-specialist—or for someone whose first language is not English—to understand?
  • Are there any specific sections that do not make sense?
  • If tables and figures have been included, do they help the reader, or are they unnecessary? Could they be improved? Do you have suggestions for additional items (summary boxes, graphics etc.)?
  1. Confidentiality

The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the professional editor.

  1. Timely Review

JRTDD believes that an efficient editorial process that results in timely publication provides a valuable service both to authors and to the community at large. We therefore request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within 15 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.

  1. Anonymity

JRTDD encourages anonymous peer-review. As a default, we will not pass a reviewer’s name on to the authors along with the comments. However, if reviewers wish to have their name revealed, we will honor that request. We discourage any attempt on the part of authors to discover the identity of any reviewer or to contact this person directly. We encourage the reviewers to adopt the same policy.

  1. Editing Reviewers’ Reports

The editors and JRTDD staff do not edit any comments made by reviewers unless the language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication or the comments contain information considered confidential. In their comments to authors, reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language. On the other hand, authors should not confuse frank and perhaps even robust language with unfair criticism.

In the interests of complete transparency we do not allow confidential comments for the editors. Reviewers should therefore assume that all the comments you make will be transmitted to the authors.

  1. Feedback to Reviewers

We send reviewers’ comments along with the decision letter to all reviewers of that manuscript. If reviewers have identified themselves, this information will be passed on to other reviewers. Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered or their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a final publication decision.

  1. JRTDD List of Reviewers

We will update the JRTDD List of Reviewers of the web site of the journal periodically. Reviewers should provide us with their full title, affiliation, addresses, etc.