Author Guidelines

Authors are responsible for informing about the status of authorship rights (for the stipulations of articles 138-143 of the Spanish Intellectual Property Act about the actions and procedures that may be taken against anyone who infringes copyright). It will be specified if the work comes from another primary publication should this be the case, and the Editorial Board will have the authority to make the corresponding decision concerning the article.

Publishing papers in REDIS does not require the payment of administrative fees or Article Processing Charges (APCs).

Articles received in Spanish and English will be published. The articles must result from high academic research, provide innovative knowledge and be unpublished. However, articles from more extensive research adapted adequately to REDIS requirements will be accepted for assessment.

Each author must send the "Declaration of originality of the written work" signed. This journal takes the recommended measures to avoid plagiarism.

To comply with the criteria of the international bibliographic indexes, we suggest limiting the citations of articles published in other editions of REDIS. Furthermore, we recommend reducing the number of self-citations to a reasonable minimum.

Similarly, due to the specific nature of REDIS, manuscripts submitted must comply with the accessibility characteristics indicated in this document to ensure that they can be read and used by anyone.

According to the terminology of national legislation on disability and the values and principles set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, REDIS recommends the use of the terms "disability", "person with a disability", and/or "person in a situation of dependence" when appropriate in the content of this magazine.

In addition, we recommend using inclusive language to give a more representative image of reality and raise awareness of the importance of acknowledging and making women and men equally visible.

For further information and examples, please see http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001149/114950so.pdf.

Format

The format of the papers should follow these guidelines:

• It is compulsory to send submissions in editable text file format (doc, rtf, odt or similar).
• All pages must contain their numbers at the bottom margin.
• Use only one font and font size: Arial 11.
• Line spacing: 1.15.
• The text should not be justified, and there should be no indentation at the beginning of paragraphs.
• Any annotations should be footnotes.
• All citations and bibliography will follow the APA norms, 7th edition.

Section-specific requirements

Articles must meet the following requirements:

• They will first include the title in Spanish and then in English, with a length of 75 to 100 characters or 10 to 15 words. It should reflect the article's content, focusing on the research problem, the method and object of study or the conclusions. We recommend including the main keywords.
• A brief abstract of between 150 and 180 words must precede the article. It will have a version in Spanish and another in English, with identical content. We suggest following the IMRaD method (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion).
• Beneath the abstract, the writer should include three to five keywords in Spanish with their corresponding translation in English. If possible, use internationally accepted terms in the scientific field and, specifically, in the field of disability.

• Subsequently, authors should present the text of the proposed manuscript, limited to a maximum length of 8,000 words, excluding the title, abstracts, keywords and bibliography.

Manuscripts submitted to the opinion forum section only require:

• Title (in English and Spanish), keywords (English and Spanish) and proposed text, with a maximum length of 5,000 words.

Book reviews will consist of:

• Title, bibliographical reference of the document reviewed, and proposed text, with a maximum length of 2,000 words.

Tables and figures

If the work includes images or other figures, the author must number them and send them separately, in XLS, JPG or PNG format (accordingly), with a resolution of at least 150 dpi in the case of images.

They must include a descriptive and concise title that provides a clear understanding of the content and the source of information from which the data and/or information is obtained, stating whether it has been prepared by the author in case it is not information extracted from another source. For figures, the author should include alternative text to comply with accessibility requirements.

Biography of the authors

A maximum of seven authors can write the paper. A brief biographical note of no more than 150 words (per person) should be attached, including:

• Full name.
• Institutional affiliation, city and country.
• E-mail address.

REDIS Secretariat reserves the right to request additional information to publish a biographical note following the practices of scientific journals once the manuscript is accepted. Authors must declare, if applicable, the support or funding of the research.

Important: The author may submit only one paper annually for consideration by REDIS.

Accessibility of the manuscript

Please follow the guidelines:

• Write in clear and straightforward language.
• Provide the expansion of an abbreviation or acronym in textual form the first time it appears in the document.
• Do not use serif fonts.
• Apply sufficient contrast to the document between background and foreground colour combinations of text and images.
• Do not base information on colour alone. Ensure that all information available in colour is also available if colour is not available.
• Avoid using bold and italics.
• Align text to the left.
• Specify the document's language and indicate the language change for all texts where it changes.
• If you need to include mathematical symbols, use the formula editor.

Considerations in writing content

• Use styles for headings and paragraphs:
  • Never apply visual aspects directly to the text (such as colours, sizes, fonts, and spacing). Instead, use structural elements and apply styles to them.
  • Modify the visual appearance of existing ones to maintain the document's structure (Plain, Heading 1, Heading 2, and Subheading).
  • Two elements with the same appearance must have the same style.
  • Respect the coherence of the information structure (you can check the coherence with the "navigation map").
  • Heading styles should not be used to highlight content.
• Lists:
• Establish their numbering rather than simulating them with tabs, spaces, and hyphens.
• Alternative text: Alternative text should be provided for images and all non-text elements (can be included in comments).
• Tables:
• Do not simulate them with tabs or spaces.
• Mark only the first row and/or the first column as headings.
• Do not use heading marking only for styling.
• Complex tables: if possible, restructure them into simple tables.
• Text in columns: do not simulate with text boxes, tables, or tabs.
• Links:
  • Specify clearly the destination of links inserted as hyperlinks in the document.
  • The text should be meaningful in its own right, and its destination should be identifiable outside its context.

Manuscript submission

Papers will be sent through the REDIS web application. The person selected in the article submission as the principal contact will receive all correspondence from the REDIS Editorial Secretariat relating to the proposal via the e-mail address registered on the journal's website. In the case of multiple authorship, this person will be responsible for contacting the collaborators and providing the REDIS Secretariat with the necessary information.

On the part of the authors, the submission of manuscripts presupposes knowledge and acceptance of these instructions and the Editorial Policy.

Submission readiness checklist

Authors must check that their submission fulfils all of the following elements as part of the submission process. We will return any submissions that do not comply with these guidelines.

• The submission has not been previously published or submitted to another journal (or an explanation provided in Comments to the Editor).
• The submitted file is in Microsoft Word format or equivalent.
• Web addresses have been added for references where possible.
• The text is 1.15 spaced; the font size is Arial 11 points; italics are used instead of underlining (except for URLs), and all illustrations, figures and tables are in the text where they belong and not at the end of the text.
• The text complies with the bibliographic and stylistic requirements indicated in the instructions for authors, which can be found in Submissions.
• If you submit to a peer-reviewed journal section, you must ensure that the instructions for blind review have been followed.

Article assessment and selection process

All research articles received in REDIS undergo an anonymous peer-review process by external specialists.

The article selection and revision fulfil the following strict quality criteria.

The selection procedure for articles (excluding those manuscripts submitted in the Opinion forum and Reviews) includes the following:

1. Article receipt: The REDIS Editorial Secretariat confirms the receipt once it receives the manuscript.
2. Upon receipt, the REDIS Editorial Secretariat will revise the manuscript to ensure its anonymisation and impartiality in the assessment process.
3. Subsequently, there will be an assessment or preliminary selection. This will involve at least two members of the Editorial Board verifying the manuscript's suitability to the thematic scope of the journal and its general quality. In the case of papers whose content is alien to the journal's subject, they will be excluded. The maximum period for rejection of papers will be three month
4. At this point, the Editorial Board will evaluate the articles that have reached this stage. There is another condition that articles must comply with before being sent for peer review, as at least half of the members of the Editorial Board must give a positive assessment. In the event of acceptance of the document for peer review, it will be communicated within three months.
5. Peer review: articles that pass the selection mentioned above will be sent to two specialists on the subject for assessment. These evaluators will deliver a reasoned report on the scientific quality of the manuscript and its suitability or not for publication, which the Editorial Board will consider. Under the assessment criteria, the evaluators will have three weeks to submit their reports. A third assessment may be requested should the two assessments be in disagreement. The Editorial Board will be responsible for the selection of the external evaluators.
6. The Editorial Secretariat will receive the external assessment reports and act as spokesperson in the deliberations on the manuscript before the Editorial Board, formulating a proposal for a resolution or a reasoned decision on the publication of the manuscript.
7. Plenary sessions of the Editorial Board shall be held twice a year and attended by a minimum of half plus one of the members of the Editorial Board. In the plenary session, the Editorial Board shall deliberate on the proposals for resolutions submitted by the Editorial Secretariat and take a final decision based on the external assessments.
8. REDIS will inform the author of the result obtained in the shortest possible time, along with the arbitrators' comments, suggestions, and observations. The content of the results report is confidential and reserved for the internal use of the journal and the author.

There are four types of decisions it may take:

• Approving the publication of the manuscript without modification.
• Proposing minor modifications to the author as a condition of publication.
• Proposing significant modifications to the author as a condition for publication.
• Declining to publish.

If the author complains or disagrees with the final result of the assessment process, the Editorial Board will be responsible for addressing and resolving the case.

However, suppose the manuscript receives a favourable decision. In that case, we will publish it when its content is compatible with the times, editorial lines and themes dictated by the journal at the time. There is an estimate of six months from the article’s submission date for the final resolution of the assessment process and communication to the authors.

If a paper is assessed as "approved with modifications", the author must promptly meet the observations, corrections or clarifications suggested by the persons in charge of the review.

Once the selection of the articles has finished, the following procedure will apply:

1. The Editorial Board’s decision and the reviewers’ decision will be notified to the authors through the application or e-mail. Authors will receive anonymous external review reports.
2. Authors of manuscripts submitted for revision for publication will have two weeks to inform the REDIS Editorial Secretariat whether they agree to make such modifications and the deadline by which they undertake to deliver the revised version, in no case more than four weeks.
3. Revised manuscripts will be sent back to the REDIS Editorial Secretariat, along with a detailed report explaining the changes made. When any proposed changes are rejected, the reasons should be given.
4. The REDIS Editorial Secretariat will send the revised version of the manuscript, the detailed report of the changes and the original manuscript to the reviewers, requesting their approval of the changes made.
5. If the reviewers state that the changes made follow the request, the manuscript will be considered approved for publication, subject to final approval by the plenary of the Board.

Author’s rights and responsibilities

All authors who propose manuscripts for publication have the following rights:

1. To receive acknowledgement of receipt, by e-mail, of their communications, regarding submitting both manuscripts and supplementary material
2. To maintain the anonymity of their authorship and not to have their manuscript disseminated beyond what is necessary for the assessment process.
3. To receive a substantiated reply on the Editorial Board's final decision, except for manuscripts rejected in the pre-selection process.
4. To submit written complaints and claims to the REDIS, which will be acknowledged by e-mail.

Authors have the following responsibilities:

1. Read and accept the editorial rules and the journal's guidelines before submitting a manuscript.
2. During the manuscript assessment process in REDIS, authors will not submit it for assessment to other journals.
3. To agree to abide by the copyright policy of REDIS.
4. To transfer to REDIS the rights of public communication of their manuscript for its free dissemination through the internet and any other portals and electronic devices decided by the publisher, by making it available to users for online consultation of its content and extract, for printing on paper and/or for downloading and archiving, all under the terms and conditions stated on the websitecedid.es/redis, which guarantee open and free access to the publications.
5. REDIS allows the authors of the papers published in the journal to publish a copy on their websites or in any open access repository once published, citing their publication in REDIS, specifying the year, issue and web link of the publication.

Editorial policy

Decisions on acceptance-rejection of submitted manuscripts are originality, relevance, methodological quality, and presentation or style.

Open access policy

This journal provides immediate and unrestricted access to its content under the principle of open access to culture and scientific research for greater global knowledge exchange.

As an open-access journal, access to the journal's contents will be free of charge, and proprietary rights are subject to a CreativeCommons licence. Specifically, the journal will be licensed under the ‘Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivs (BY-NC-ND)’ license. This license allows free use of the contents but not commercial use of the original work or the generation of derivative works.

Disclaimer

The authors' sole responsibility is the opinions and facts in each article. The publisher accepts no responsibility concerning the credibility and authenticity of the works.

Ethical principles, the statement on negligence and plagiarism detection policy

Based on the objectives set out in the editorial policy and to encourage academic discussion within the field of disability, REDIS adopts a neutral position on the issues that, within this specific thematic area, are the subject of analysis within the framework of the articles published in the journal.

Concerning the authors' obligations, REDIS will ensure compliance with ethical principles in the event of fraud or plagiarism, the responsibility for which lies exclusively with the author.

Likewise, it will try to avoid scientific fraud, understood as the fabrication, falsification or omission of data, plagiarism, duplicate publication and authorship conflicts.

The prominent cases of plagiarism, according to http://www.plagiarism.org, are: presenting someone else's work as one's own, adopting words or ideas from other authors without acknowledgement, not using inverted commas in a literal quotation, giving incorrect information about the trustworthy source of a quotation, paraphrasing a source without mentioning it or abusive paraphrasing, even if it is mentioned, among others.

To ensure that the entire editorial process is carried out under criteria of independence, academic rigour and qualitative soundness, all those involved in the editorial process (authors, reviewers, editors and journal managers) are required to comply with the expected ethical standards at all stages of their participation, from the reception to the publication of an article.

The journal's Editorial Board will monitor and ensure compliance with REDIS' ethical standards.

REDIS is also committed to complying with and respecting the rules of ethical behaviour at all stages of the publication process, based on entities such as The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which is responsible for promoting standards and providing guidelines for good practice in this area.

Publication’s ethical expectations

Editorial Board Responsabilities

1. In order to ensure that authors understand the assessment criteria, the Editorial Board defines the peer review process and explains it to the authors. The Board will always be willing to settle any controversy in the assessment process.
2. The Editorial Board is responsible for duly informing the authors about the stage of the editorial process at which the submitted text is at and about the editorial board's decisions.

Editorial body’s and editor’s responsibilities

1. The Spanish Centre for Documentation and Research on Disability (CEDID) commits itself to preserving the anonymity of the persons in charge of the revision and ensuring proper compliance with the abovementioned rules.
2. Act balanced, objective, and fair in performing its duties.
3. Consider and assess the articles submitted solely on their academic merit regarding the journal's objectives.
4. Ensure that there is no conflict of interest concerning the reviewed articles.
5. Preserve the reviewers' and author's anonymity until the publication of the manuscript.
6. Adopt and follow reasonable procedures in case of ethical complaints or conflicts, subject to the journal's policies and procedures.
7. Provide authors with a reasonable procedure to respond to complaints, these will be investigated, and the documentation will be retained for review.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Contribute to the decision-making process and help improve the published work's quality through the objective revision of the manuscript within the established deadlines.
2. Maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the publisher or the author. Not to retain or copy the manuscript.
3. Highlight the need to cite any published work that has not been correctly cited in the manuscript under review.
4. Alert the editorial secretary to any content substantially similar to that under revision already published or submitted.
5. Be aware of potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and the author), alert the editorial secretary of them, and, if necessary, withdraw their services for the manuscript that may be subject to a conflict of interest.

Author responsibilities

1. Submit to the peer review process, keep a record of the data associated with the submitted manuscript and provide access to them if requested. If appropriate and with the approval of the employing entity, company or organisation, funding agency and other interested parties, deposit the data in a repository or appropriate storage location to facilitate subsequent use by others once the manuscript has been published in the journal.
2. Ensure that the submitted manuscript is not being evaluated or has already been accepted for publication elsewhere. Acknowledge and cite sources if there are parts of the content that correspond to others that have already been published or submitted for publication. In addition, provide a copy of any manuscript submitted that may contain overlapping or closely related excerpts to the publisher.
3. Confirm that all work in the submitted manuscript is original and that the data provided are authentic. Acknowledge the authorship of all persons involved in the work. Acknowledge and cite content reproduced from other sources and obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources.
4. Ensure that all studies concerning individuals conform to national, local and institutional laws and requirements and confirm that approval has been sought and obtained where necessary. Authors must obtain the express permission of subjects and respect their privacy.
5. Report any potential conflicts of interest.
6. Promptly notify the editorial secretary if they identify a significant error in their publication. If necessary, cooperate with REDIS to publish an errata sheet, addendum, error correction notice, or withdraw the text.

PROCEDURE FOR BEHAVIOUR NOT IN LINE WITH THE ETHICAL EXPECTATIONS OF THE PUBLICATION

Identifying unethical behaviour

1. Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and reported to the editorial coordinator at any time and by anyone.
2. Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but is not necessarily limited to, examples similar to those cited above.
3. Anyone who reports alleged misconduct or unethical behaviour to the editorial secretary must provide enough information and evidence to enable an investigation to be launched.
4. All denunciations will be treated with the same rigour and seriousness and investigated until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

1. The editorial coordinator will be responsible for making an initial decision, in which case she will consult or seek the advice of the Editorial Board, if necessary.
2. Evidence will be collected, avoiding disseminating any accusations and informing only those bodies and persons deemed necessary according to the scope and importance of each particular case.

Minor infringements

Misconduct considered as minor offences may be dealt with without the need to involve the Editorial Board. In any case, the author should be allowed to respond to the allegations.

Major infringements

Serious misconduct may require notification by REDIS to the entity, company or organisation employing the accused persons. In consensus with the Editorial Board, the editorial coordinator should decide whether to involve the employing entity, company or organisation. Furthermore, a decision should be made whether to analyse the available evidence without external support or consult with a limited number of experts.

Consequences

1. Notifying the author or reviewer of the existence of a misunderstanding or misapplication of the publication's ethical standards.
2. Sending a notification to the author or reviewer engaging in the misconduct as a warning against future misconduct about the ethical standards of the publication.
3. Publishing a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
4. Publishing an editorial detailing the misconduct.
5. Sending a formal letter to the author's supervisor, manager, reviewer's department or funding body.
6. Retracting formally or withdrawing publication from the journal and notifying the author's supervising or responsible person or the reviewer's department, indexing services and the journal's readership.
7. Reporting the case to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and determining responsibilities.