Thursday, January 29, 2015

JSER OJS platform was upgrade into version 2.4.5.

Dear readers and colleagues,
I have good news for you. Last week we upgrade JSER OJS platform into version 2.4.5 which is very suitable. With this new version of OJS comes an updated “2.0” release of the CrossRef plugin, adding new functionality and features; such as automatic deposits. This plugin will see continued refinement and improvement as its use increases.
PKP and CrossRef are collaborating to help publishers and journals using Open Journal Systems (OJS) take better advantage of CrossRef services. As of 2014, PKP has become a Sponsoring Entity of CrossRef, and as such will be providing much improved CrossRef integration and overall support for the service. Additionally, PKP can now act as a sponsor representative for OJS journals wishing to apply for CrossRef membership, and is in some cases able to waive fees. You’ll find more information, as well as instructions on how to configure OJS for automatic deposits, on this page.
Also with this upgrade we cover other journals from digital library of the Faculty of Philosophy in Skopje. Here, I want to thank to Dr. Lazar Stoshic, editor-in-chief of International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education for his great valuable help and to Mr. Andrej Krstevski our newest web administrator.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation (JSER) is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation (JSER) does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation (JSER) affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, they warrant that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere.
The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.
More information can be found on the The Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK).

17.1. Publication decisions
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

17.2. Fair play
An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

17.3. Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

17.4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

17.5. Duties of Reviewers

17.5.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

17.5.2. Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

17.5.3. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

17.5.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

17.5.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

17.5.6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

17.6. Duties of Authors

17.6.1. Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

17.6.2. Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

17.6.3. Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

17.6.4. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

17.6.5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

17.6.6. Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

17.6.7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

17.6.8. Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Saturday, January 24, 2015

Дефектолошка теорија и практика indexed in Stanford University Libraries

Dear readers,
I want to announce that Дефектолошка теорија и практика is indexed in Stanford University Libraries now. This is one more big step for our editorial office.

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

New citations to articles in Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation's profile

Dear readers,
There is one new selfcitation of our authors.
Ahmed Elnakib, Ahmed Soliman, Matthew Nitzken, Manuel F. Casanova, Georgy Gimel’farb3, and Ayman El-Baz. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings for Dyslexia: A Survey.
Journal of Biomedical Nanotechnology Vol. 10, 1–28, 2014.

[PDF] Magnetic Resonance Imaging Findings for Dyslexia: A Survey

A Elnakib, A Soliman, M Nitzken, MF Casanova… - 2014

They cited JSER paper
M. F. Casanova, A. Farag, A. El-Baz, M. Meghan, H. Hassan, R. Fahmi, and A. E. Switala, Abnormalities of the gyral window in autism: A macroscopic correlate to a putative minicolumnopathy. JSER 1, 85 (2007).

JSER editor-in-chief 

Sunday, January 18, 2015

Two new citations of JSER articles in early 2015

Dear colleagues,
JSER articles has two new citations in early 2015.
The first one is:
C Fang, S Garbuzova-Davis, J Tan, D Obregon - 2015.C1q as a Regulator of Brain Development: Implications for Autism Spectrum Disorders. Brain Disord Ther 2015, 4:1

[PDF] Brain Disorders & Therapy

JSER paper cited here is: Singh VK (2005) Elevation of Serum C-Reactive Protein and S100 Proteins for Systemic Inflammation in Autistic Children. Journal of Special Education & Rehabilitation.

The other one paper is cited in impact factor journal Topics in Early Childhood Special Education
Impact Factor:1.364 | Ranking:Education, Special 10 out of 37

Inclusion of Children With Special Needs in Early Childhood Education What Teacher Characteristics Matter

FLM Lee, AS Yeung, D Tracey, K Barker - Topics in Early Childhood Special …, 2015
Because this is not open access journal I will provide you only with abstract.


Whereas the inclusion of children with special needs in regular classrooms has gained increasing advocacy, teachers’ attitudes vary. Previous studies examining teacher attitudes have focused on primary and secondary schools in the Western world, and little is known about early childhood settings in Eastern countries. This study used MANOVA to examine preschool teachers’ attitudes in Hong Kong (N = 410). Teachers reported only modest support for inclusion. Teachers with training in special education were stronger advocates of inclusion, irrespective of their professional roles (administrator or class teacher), for children with intellectual disability, or visual, hearing, and speech and language impairments. However, neither teacher training nor professional role made a significance difference to teachers’ support of including children with physical disability, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning difficulty, and the gifted and talented. Implications for practice and further research are explored. 

JSER editor-in-chief

Saturday, January 17, 2015

JSER indexing and abstracting

Dear readers,
JSER has 60 indexation and abstracting until today January 17th, 2015. They are following databases:

    1. AcademicKeys
    2. Academic Journals Database
    3. Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (BASE)
    4. Cabell's Directories
    5. CiteFactor  
    6. Chinese Directory of Open Access
    7. CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastucture) 
    8. COnnections REpositories (CORE)
    9. De Gruyter 
    10. DeepDyve 
    11. DOAJ
    12. Directory of Abstract Indexing for Journals
    13. Directory of Research Journals Indexing
    14. Directory of Science
    15. EBSCO
    16. Educational Research Abstracts Online
    17. ERIH PLUS
    18. ETBU
    19. Genamics JournalSeek
    20. Geneva Foundation for Medical Education and Research
    21. GESIS SocioGuide
    22. getCITED
    23. Google Scholar
    24. HINARI
    25. Index Copernicus
    26. InnoSpace - SJIF Scientific Journal Impact Factor
    27. J-Gate
    28. Journals for free 
    29. JournalTOCs  
    30. LibSearch
    31. Medical Journal Links
    32. Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD)  
    33. Open Academic Journals Index
    34. Open Access Library
    35. Open J Gate
    36. ourGlocal
    37. Polish Scholarly Bibliography 
    38. Proquest
    39. PUBDB DESY Publication Database 
    40. Pubget
    41. Pubicon Science Index
    42. Pubshub 
    43. Research Bible 
    44. Questia Trusted Online Research
    45. Sciencegate
    46. Scientific Commons
    47. Scientific Indexing Services
    48. SCImago Journal & Country Rank (SJR)
    49. Scirus
    50. Scopus
    51. Shendusou
    53. Sjournals Index 
    54. SOCOLAR
    55. SummonTM Service
    56. CWTS Journal Indicator
    57. Virtual Science Library (VSL)
    59. WorldCat
 JSER editor-in-chief

JSER indexed in J-Gate

Dear colleagues,
Last year JSER was indexed in J-Gate.
J-Gate is an electronic gateway to global e-journal literature. Launched in 2001 by Informatics India Limited, J-Gate provides seamless access to millions of journal articles available online offered by 8,750 + Publishers. Presently it has a massive database of journal literature, indexed from 26,830+ e-journals with links to full text at publisher sites. J-Gate also plans to support online subscription to journals, electronic document delivery, archiving and other related services. It offers bibliographic information services to scholarly and technical electronic journal literature. J-Gate Social & Management Sciences (JSMS) is a subset of J-Gate and indexes e-journals in the fields of Business, Economy & Management, Law, Library Sciences and Social Sciences. Journal coverage: 9,600 Indexed, 3,800 free full text.
JSER editor-in-chief

Thursday, January 15, 2015


Respected colleagues, dear readers,
I want to share JSER 2014 ANNUAL REVIEW REPORT according our electronic publisher DE GRUYTER. You can find into it following contents: 
  • Display of ORCID and FundRefinformation in journal articles,
  • Partnership with Copyright Clearance Centerto automate permissions requests in journal articles,
  • Partnership with publishing software company ReadCube,
  • Other features that were added or improved on De Gruyter Online
  • Statistics,
  • Services indexing the journal,
  • De Gruyter Open Team.
JSER editor-in-chief

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Top 5 most cited JSER papers

Dear Readers,
By Google Scholar you can see top five most cited JSER papers. Please see them bellow.
JSER editor-in-chief

Title1–100Cited byYear
Fundamental aspects and first results of the clinical application of combined electric and acoustic stimulation of the auditory system
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation 5 (1-2)
Abnormalities of the gyral window in autism: A macroscopic correlate to a putative minicolumnopathy
MF Casanova, A Farag, ELBAZ Ayman, M Meghan, H Hassan, R Fahmi, ...
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation 7 (1-2)
Parents of children with developmental disabilities: stress and support
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation 14 (1-2), 7-19
Rehabilitation of autism with immune modulation therapy
Journal of Special education and Rehabilitation 5 (3-4)
Inclusion of Children with Intellectual and Multiple Disabilities: A Community-Based Rehabilitation Approach, India
R Lakhan
Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation 14 (1-2), 79-97

JSER indexed in ERIH PLUS

Dear readers and colleagues,
It is my great pleasure to inform you that I just received email that Journal of Special Education and Rehabilitation is indexed in ERIH PLUS.
The European Reference Index for the Humanities and the Social Sciences (ERIH PLUS) was created and developed by European researchers under the coordination of the Standing Committee for the Humanities (SCH) of the European Science Foundation (ESF). The ERIH lists, which initially covered only humanities disciplines, were first published by ESF in 2008, while revised lists were made available in 2011-2012. In 2014, responsibility for the maintenance and operation of ERIH was transferred to the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD). The reference index at NSD is called ERIH PLUS in order to indicate that it has been extended to include the social sciences. 
JSER editor-in-chief

Sunday, January 11, 2015

JSER indexed in Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD)

Respected colleagues,
JSER is indexed in prestigious  Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) which is one of the leader data bases for social sciences in Europe. NSD is in association with ERIH PLUS. The European Science Foundation (ESF) signed in January 2014 a memorandum of understanding with the Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD) to transfer the maintenance and operations of the European Reference Index for the Humanities (ERIH) to NSD. The ERIH database operated by NSD is called ERIH PLUS.
This is a one more big step toward JSER international recognition.
JSER Editor-in-chief

Saturday, January 10, 2015

JSER indexed in Directory of abstract indexing for Journals

Dear readers,
JSER is indexed in Directory of abstract indexing for Journals. Here is the prove for that.
JSER Editor-in-chief

Dear Chief Editor/Editor,
We are very happy to inform you that your journal has been indexed successively on Directory of abstract indexing for Journals.
Thanking you,

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

JSER IBI factor 2014

Dear colleagues,
I want to share with you our newest JSER IBI factor for 2014. It is 36.6 on the scale from 0 to 50 which is not so bad. IBI factor is a measure of evolution of a journal. It is a tool in the hands of a researcher to identify a better evolved journal either to publish his/ her research, or to source articles from, to aid his research. As a journal ages, it improves in various parameters like quality of articles published, standardization of review process, distribution of authors, web interface etc. IBI factor takes into account various factors and grades journals submitted to InfoBase Index for evaluation. Higher score indicates that the journal is more evolved. If a publisher chooses to go through the evaluation process, he can also use it as a tool to identify areas in which his/ her journal can improve. More about IBI factor on InfoBase Index web site.
JSER Editor-in-chief

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Confessions of a managing editor (or 6 reasons I’m returning your manuscript)

Before the journal editor has seen it, before the reviewer has evaluated it — and way before the first decision to accept or reject is made — I've read, corrected and sent back your manuscript. And, yes, you have to make this "laundry list" of editorial changes.
From the "thank you notes" in my inbox, I suspect many of you are not thrilled to receive my constructive criticism.
I am the Managing Editor of four health science journals, and more than 900 submitted manuscripts a year pass by these eagle eyes. If you've submitted a manuscript, my co-conspirators and I have picked through your methods and results, your figures and your references (Oh, the references!), and we've seen that you've been a naughty researcher (tsk, tsk). You did not follow the author guidelines on the journal's website – you know, the point-by-point instructions in the Guide for Authors that you conveniently ignored to save precious time in submitting your manuscript. The same guidelines the editor, publisher and I painstakingly wrote in order to make the review and publication process run smoothly and in turn get your paper published and cited more quickly.
What's a managing editor to do? I'll tell you what an ME doesn't do, and that's get reprimanded by her editor!
So to save both of us from grief, I present to you the top six reasons I'm returning your manuscript.
In no particular order – except perhaps the order in which the editor would have my head if I send through a manuscript with these issues.

1. Your ritten English could use improvement.

"But I did my residency at NYU Medical Center!"
Global manuscript submissions are on the rise. Great! And they are, for the most part, written in English. Also great. You speak English, you speak English well, you speak English well to your English-speaking colleagues. (And when it comes to science, you're as brainy as it gets.) However, your written English … mmm, not so great. Speaking and writing are two different things. Even native speakers could use a second pair of eyes to proofread their papers. In fact, a proofreader will read this article write right after I type it. (Postscript: As you can see, the proofreader did her job.)
If you're not a native speaker, I would highly recommend you have at least one colleague look over your work, or consider paying for a language editing service.  (At Elsevier, we have English Language Editing). And don't forget to edit your own copy. In a note to an author recently, one of our editors pointed out that even as a native speaker, he proofreads his own manuscripts three or four times before submitting them. Whatever you do, don't make your editor re-write your paper in frustration.

2. References should not be an afterthought

"But I used EndNote!"
Picture this. I just received a manuscript and am opening up the PDF file. I'm already on the edge. I see a few minor changes to be made. Scrolling, scrolling, scrooooool — Nooooooooo!
About 75 percent of my time is spent reformatting references.
Now I hear you. Every journal has a different referencing format. You waste time formatting and reformatting depending on which journal you submit to – and there's no guarantee your paper will even be accepted.
Should journals strive to have a more uniform referencing style? Yes! Your time should be spent more productively on your findings and data.
Fortunately, your colleagues at Elsevier agree with you, so they created Your Paper, Your Way. The program is rolling out to more and more journals here. It allows you to skip those "pesky style guidelines" for the initial submission as long as the basic article elements are there. Only if your paper is accepted will you be asked to format it to the journal's style. Elsevier will even convert the references for you as long as they have all the necessary information.
Of course, not every journal has this program, so check with the Guide for Authors, and submit your references according to specs. You will make your managing editor smile.

3. Your copy is crawling with acronyms

"Everyone knows what STDBUEA stands for!"
Now, I know that HbA1c is glycated hemoglobin; you know that HbA1c is glycated hemoglobin; the editor knows that HbA1c is glycated hemoglobin. So then everyone else should know that HbA1c is glycated hemoglobin, right? Not quite. Although we live in a virtual alphabet soup of technical jargon, not everyone is up on the lingo. For example, if your paper is published, it will likely be read by researchers in other disciplines who are unfamiliar with the abbreviations. The Guide for Authors on the journal's homepage usually states that you need to define your abbreviations when they are first introduced in the manuscript, or include an abbreviation list so that reviewers and eventual readers don't have to scratch their heads trying to remember that GLP-1 is glucagon-like peptide-1 (yes, I had to look that one up).

4. Your manuscript is a sea of red

'Voilà, I used the language service."
So you've written your manuscript or re-written your revision. You've checked it once, you've checked it twice. You've even sent it to a proofreader – hooray! But you've left the tracked changes on so we can see, in red, all the changes you've made. But that's all I can see: RED, underlined and crossed out all over the page. Comment bubbles, back and forth from you to the editor to your co-author. The journal should receive a clean final copy of your submission. For revisions, you are usually asked to upload your responses to reviewer comments as a separate document, or highlight the changes in the manuscript in a manner than does not impede the natural flow of reading of your paper.

5. You "conveniently" embedded figures and tables into the manuscript.

"But, that's how it appears in print"
Yes, I know. In the printed article, tables and figures appear right alongside the text they complement – and yes, it would make it easier for the reviewer to have them right there next to the text. This is where you have the opportunity to make someone else smile: the production team. When your manuscript is accepted – kudos by the way – and I send your files to our production team for copyediting and typesetting, they will need those files submitted separately. If not, guess what one of the first production queries will be (right after the missing Conflict of Interest statement: Number 7 if I did a Top 10 list). This adds extra time to the production process, and we want to get your paper to the citable stage as quickly as possible. There are drop-down menus for each submission type conveniently located at the manuscript upload page. Feel free to use them with wild abandon.

6. The line numbers are lost in translation.

For one of my journals, we ask authors to insert line numbers, again to make the review process smoother for our many manuscript-fatigued reviewers. On some papers coming from nations that use the right to left formatting on their word processing software, the line numbers somehow get embedded right through the text of the manuscript. Darned if I can figure out how to fix that dilemma other than overly exaggerating the left margins, or copying and pasting the entire manuscript into a new document. Something in the conversion to a Western format just makes the line numbers go higgly-piggly, and it drives me batty! If anyone has any suggestions or remedies, I would greatly appreciate it.
I look forward to receiving your next submission – in the proper format of course.