- 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.
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
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.
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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- Does this article contain enough new information to warrant publication? Does it take the discussion and debate on this topic in a novel direction?
- 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.)?
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.
- 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.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
- OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions). The PLoSshorthand definition —”free availability and unrestricted use”— succinctly captures both elements.
- There is some flexibility about which permission barriers to remove. For example, some OA providers permit commercial re-use and some do not. Some permit derivative works and some do not. But all of the major public definitions of OA agree that merely removing price barriers, or limiting permissible uses to “fair use” (“fair dealing” in the UK), is not enough.
- Here’s how the Budapest Open Access Initiative put it: “There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By ‘open access’ to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
- Here’s how the Bethesda and Berlin statements put it: For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users “copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship….”
- The Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003), and Berlin (October 2003) definitions of “open access” are the most central and influential for the OA movement. Sometimes I refer to them collectively, or to their common ground, as the BBB definition.
- When we need to refer unambiguously to sub-species of OA, we can borrowterminology from the kindred movement for free and open-source software.Gratis OA removes price barriers alone, and libre OA removes price barriers and at least some permission barriers as well. Gratis OA is free of charge, but not free of copyright of licensing restrictions. Users must either limit themselves to fair use or seek permission to exceed it. Libre OA is free of charge and expressly permits uses beyond fair use. To adapt Richard Stallman’s famousformulation (originally applied to software), gratis OA is free as in ‘free beer’, while libre OA is also free as in ‘free speech’.
- In addition to removing access barriers, OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and should apply to full texts, not just abstracts or summaries.
OA is compatible with copyright, peer review, revenue (even profit), print, preservation, prestige, quality, career-advancement, indexing, and other features and supportive services associated with conventional scholarly literature.
- The primary difference is that the bills are not paid by readers and hence do not function as access barriers.
The legal basis of OA is the consent of the copyright holder (for newer literature) or the expiration of copyright (for older literature).
- Because OA uses copyright-holder consent or the expiration of copyright, it does not require the reform, abolition, or infringement of copyright law.
- One easy, effective, and increasingly common way for copyright holders to manifest their consent to OA is to use one of the Creative Commons licenses. Many other open-content licenses will also work. Copyright holders could also compose their own licenses or permission statements and attach them to their works (though there are good reasons not to do so without legal advice).
- When copyright holders consent to OA, what are they consenting to? Usually they consent in advance to the unrestricted reading, downloading, copying, sharing, storing, printing, searching, linking, and crawling of the full-text of the work. Most authors choose to retain the right to block the distribution of mangled or misattributed copies. Some choose to block commercial re-use of the work. Essentially, these conditions block plagiarism, misrepresentation, and sometimes commercial re-use, and authorize all the uses required by legitimate scholarship, including those required by the technologies that facilitate online scholarly research.
- For works not in the public domain, OA depends on copyright-holder consent. Two related conclusions follow: (1) OA is not Napster for science. It’s about lawful sharing, not sharing in disregard of law. (2) OA to copyrighted works is voluntary, even if it is sometimes a condition of a voluntary contract, such as an employment or funding contract. There is no vigilante OA, no infringing, expropriating, or piratical OA.
- Of course OA can be implemented badly so that it infringes copyright. But so can ordinary publishing. With a little care it can be implemented well so that doesn’t infringe copyright. Just like ordinary publishing.
OA is compatible with peer review, and all the major OA initiatives for scientific and scholarly literature insist on its importance.
- Peer review does not depend on the price or medium of a journal. Nor does the value, rigor, or integrity of peer review.
- One reason we know that peer review at OA journals can be as rigorous and honest as peer review in conventional journals is that it can use the same procedures, the same standards, and even the same people (editors and referees) as conventional journals.
- Conventional publishers sometimes object that one common funding model for OA journals (charging fees to authors of accepted articles or their sponsors) compromises peer review. I’ve answered this objection at length elsewhere.
- OA journals can use traditional forms of peer review or they can use innovative new forms that take advantage of the new medium and the interactive network joining scholars to one another. However, removing access barriers and reforming peer review are independent projects. OA is compatible with every kind of peer review and doesn’t presuppose any particular model.
- The reverse is not true, however. Some emerging models of peer review presuppose OA, for example models of “open review” in which submitted manuscripts are made OA (before or after some in-house review) and then reviewed by the research community. Open review requires OA but OA does not require open review.
- In most disciplines and most fields the editors and referees who perform peer review donate their labor, just like the authors. Where they are paid, OA to the resulting articles is still possible; it merely requires a larger subsidy than otherwise.
- Despite the fact that those exercising editorial judgment usually donate their labor, performing peer review still has costs –distributing files to referees, monitoring who has what, tracking progress, nagging dawdlers, collecting comments and sharing them with the right people, facilitating communication, distinguishing versions, collecting data, and so on. Increasingly these non-editorial tasks are being automated by software, including free and open-source software.
Open access is not synonymous with universal access.
- Even after OA has been achieved, at least four kinds of access barrier might remain in place:
- Filtering and censorship barriers. Many schools, employers, and governments want to limit what you can see.
- Language barriers. Most online literature is in English, or just one language, and machine translation is very weak.
- Handicap access barriers. Most web sites are not yet as accessible to handicapped users as they should be.
- Connectivity barriers. The digital divide keeps billions of people, including millions of serious scholars, offline.
- Even if we want to remove these four additional barriers (and most of us do), there’s no reason to hold off using the term “open access” until we’ve succeeded. Removing price and permission barriers is a significant plateau worth recognizing with a special name.
OA is a kind of access, not a kind of business model, license, or content.
- OA is not a kind of business model.
- There are many business models compatible with OA, i.e many ways to pay the bills so that readers can reach the content without charge. Models that work well in some fields and nations may not work as well in others. No one claims that one size fits all.
- There are many differences among the disciplines that affect the funding of OA. We should not expect OA to make progress in all disciplines at the same rate, any more than we should expect it to make progress in all countries at the same rate. Most of the progress and debate is taking place in the STM fields (science, technology, and medicine), but OA is just as feasible and useful in the humanities.
- New OA business models are evolving, and older ones are being tested and revised, all the time. There’s a lot of room for creativity in finding ways to pay the costs of a peer-reviewed OA journal or a general-purpose OA repository, and we’re far from having exhausted our cleverness and imagination.
- OA is not a kind of license. There are many licenses compatible with OA, i.e. many ways to remove permission barriers for users and let them know what they may and may not do with the content. See the sections on permission barriers and licenses above.
- OA is not a kind of content. Every kind of digital content can be OA, from texts and data to software, audio, video, and multi-media. The OA movement focuses on peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints. While most of these are just text, a growing number integrate text with images, data, and executable code. OA can also apply to non-scholarly content, like music, movies, and novels, even if these are not the focus of most OA activists.
OA serves the interests of many groups.
- Authors: OA gives them a worldwide audience larger than that of any subscription-based journal, no matter how prestigious or popular, and demonstrably increases the visibility and impact of their work.
- Readers: OA gives them barrier-free access to the literature they need for their research, unconstrained by the budgets of the libraries where they may have access privileges. OA increases reader reach and retrieval power. OA also gives barrier-free access to the software they use in their research. Free online literature is free online data for software that facilitates full-text searching, indexing, mining, summarizing, translating, querying, linking, recommending, alerting, “mash-ups” and other forms of processing and analysis.
- Teachers and students: OA puts rich and poor on an equal footing for these key resources and eliminates the need for payments or permissions to reproduce and distribute content.
- Libraries: OA solves the pricing crisis for scholarly journals. It also solves what I’ve called the permission crisis. OA also serves library interests in other, indirect ways. Librarians want to help users find the information they need, regardless of the budget-enforced limits on the library’s own collection. Academic librarians want to help faculty increase their audience and impact, and help the university raise its research profile.
- Universities: OA increases the visibility of their faculty and research, reduces their expenses for journals, and advances their mission to share knowledge.
- Journals and publishers: OA makes their articles more visible, discoverable, retrievable, and useful. If a journal is OA, then it can use this superior visibility to attract submissions and advertising, not to mention readers and citations. If a subscription-based journal provides OA to some of its content (e.g. selected articles in each issue, all back issues after a certain period, etc.), then it can use its increased visibility to attract all the same benefits plus subscriptions. If a journal permits OA through postprint archiving, then it has an edge in attracting authors over journals that do not permit postprint archiving. Of course subscription-based journals and their publishers have countervailing interests as well and often resist or oppose OA. But it oversimplifies the situation to think that all their interests pull against OA.
- Funding agencies: OA increases the return on their investment in research, making the results of the funded research more widely available, more discoverable, more retrievable, and more useful. When funding agencies disburse public funds, OA helps in a second way as well, by providing fundamental fairness to taxpayers or public access to the results of publicly-funded research.
- Governments: As funders of research, governments benefit from OA in all the ways that funding agencies do (see previous entry). OA also promotes democracy by sharing non-classified government information as widely as possible.
- Citizens: OA gives them access to peer-reviewed research, most of which is unavailable in public libraries, and gives them access to the research for which they have already paid through their taxes. But even those with no interest in reading this literature for themselves will benefit indirectly because researchers will benefit directly. OA accelerates not only research but the translation of research into new medicines, useful technologies, solved problems, and informed decisions that benefit everyone.