• Article assessment and selection process
• Author’s rights and responsibilities
• Editorial policy
• Publication’s ethical expectations

REDIS disseminates works from different research areas on disability, namely in the following domains:

● Education
● Social Services
● Personal autonomy and dependence
● Rights
● Accessibility
● Employment
● SDGs
● Gender
● Childhood

All manuscripts accepted must belong to the following categories:

a) Articles: manuscripts of an academic and/or scientific nature, resulting from research conducted, theoretical-analytical approaches, assessments of intervention processes, research advances or notes, and documentary reviews. Each journal edition will include seven to ten articles.

b) Opinion forum: manuscripts that present reflections and/or promising practices of entities, professionals and/or people with disabilities. Each journal edition will include one to three articles selected by the Editorial Board based on their editorial interest, relevance and topicality.

c) Reviews: summaries of monographic works whose dissemination may interest the scientific community. Every edition will include one to two reviews.

Manuscripts submitted to the Articles section follow an anonymous peer review process that does not apply to the Opinion forum and Reviews sections.

 

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 months.

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 materials.
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 website www.cedid.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 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.

 

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.