Apycom jQuery Menus
 


 

 

 Manuscript Review Policy for the Bulletin of Special Education

 

2007.03.02 Approved by the Editorial Committee
2007.06.08 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2008.11.03 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2009.10.22 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2011.06.13 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2012.10.25 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2013.6.4 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee

2014.10.6 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2015.6.22 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee
2017.2.422 Modifications Approved by the Editorial Committee

 

I.  Manuscript Review Process
The review of manuscripts for this publication includes three stages: preliminary review, initial review, and secondary review.
1. Preliminary Review:
(1)All incoming manuscripts are first reviewed for their formats by the assistant editors to confirm if the submissions satisfy the key format requirements (including number of words, form and style of writing).
(2)Manuscripts passing through the format review are then sent to the chief editor, executive editor, and editorial committee members serving as editors-in-charge for preliminary review.
(3)Only manuscripts satisfying the criteria of preliminary review are sent to the reviewers for initial review. Those that do not qualify are either rejected outright, or declined and the authors are asked to conduct revisions. Declined manuscripts are only delivered to initial review after passing preliminary review.
 
2. Initial Review:  
(1) For every manuscript that passes through the preliminary review, a list of two to four recommended reviewers is provided by the editorial committee members (in order of preference). The chief editor and executive editor then select three reviewers from the list, and deliver the manuscript to the first two reviewers for review. If the recommended reviewer is unable to review, the chief editor and executive editor then determine alternative reviewers who can review the manuscript.
(2)The result of the initial review is classified into four types of recommendations, including namely publish, publish after revision, additional review after revision, and do not publish.
(3)This publication determines how to handle a manuscript based on the initial review results of the two reviewers. The procedure is shown in the table below.

  Agree to Publish Publish after revision Additional review after revision Reject for publication
Agree to Publish Recommended for Acceptance Notify for Revision Notify for Revision before sending to Original Reviewer for Additional Review Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3
Publish after revision Notify for Revision Notify for Revision Notify for Revision before sending to Original Reviewer for Additional Review Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3
Additional review after revision Notify for Revision before sending to Original Reviewer for Additional Review Notify for Revision before sending to Original Reviewer for Additional Review Notify for Revision before sending to Original Reviewer for Additional Review Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3 or Recommended for rejection
Reject for publication Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3 Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3 Submit for re-examination by Reviewer 3 or Recommended for rejection Recommended for Rejection
 
 

a. Manuscripts reviewed after being sent to Reviewer Three are processed by the chief editor and executive editor according to the results of the three reviews.

b. Manuscripts recommended as “publish after revision” or “additional review after revision” by the initial  reviewers should be revised by the authors. The author must complete the revision within the allowed duration, and upload the revised manuscript and “revision notes and explanations.”

c. If the review results of both reviewers are “publish” or “publish after revision,” then the manuscript is recommended for acceptance or recommend for acceptance after revision.

d. If the initial review results from both reviewers are “do not publish,” the manuscript is recommended for rejection.

 

3. Secondary Review:

    (1)Manuscripts recommended as “publish after revision” during the initial review are delivered to the original reviewers or the chief editor, executive editor, or editor-in-charge for secondary review. However, secondary review by the original reviewer is limited to once per manuscript.

 

    (2)Manuscripts recommended as “publish” or “publish after revision” in the initial review and manuscripts recommended as  “publish” after secondary review (which were recommended as “additional review after revision” in the initial review), receive confirmation of revision status form the executive editor, and are submitted to the editorial committee for decision on whether to publish.


(3)If the author does not revise the manuscript according to the review opinions or the format of this publication, or if the author does not upload the manuscript in time, publication of the manuscript will be delayed or withdrawn after decision by the editorial committee.


(4)In principle, disputed manuscripts are decided by discussion in the editorial committee. If necessary, the executive editor is responsible for contacting the author regarding revisions of the paper.


(5)Manuscripts to be published by decision of the editorial committee should proceed directly to subsequent editing and printing processes. The order of appearance for manuscripts in each publication is determined by the editorial committee according to criteria including the characteristics of the manuscript.

II. Principle of the Manuscript Review Process

  1. The editorial committee members consider the topic of the manuscript, and recommend outstanding researchers in the professional field as reviewers. To ensure review quality and enhance the academic status of this publication, we invite the reviewers to conduct strict reviews on the academic originality, accuracy, and value of the manuscript.
  2. When determining the list of reviewers, special considerations are given to the relationship between the reviewers and the author (dissertation or thesis supervisor, family relation, partners, or other forms of relationships or interested parties), to avoid unsuitable reviewers. If a member of the editorial committee submits a manuscript to this publication, this member should avoid recommending the list of reviewers, participating in the discussions deciding the results of the review, or otherwise handling information related to their own manuscript (including reviewer information, list of recommended reviewers, and reviewer opinions).
  3. All manuscripts are reviewed during a process in which both the reviewer and the reviewed are anonymous. The editorial committee members are charged with the responsibility of keeping the information of the author and the reviewer secret.
  4. Considering the rights and benefits of the author, initial review opinions for all incoming manuscripts must be sent to the author within six months of receipt.

III. Withdrawal of Manuscript

  1. To avoid resource waste, if any manuscript still in the initial review stage or accepted after review is  requested to be withdrawn, this publication will not accept manuscript submissions from the same author within one year.
  2. After the completion of the initial review, authors of manuscripts who are required to conduct revision based on formal notice from this publication must complete the revision, and upload the revised manuscript within the notified duration. If this process is not completed, the manuscript is considered withdrawn. If large-scale revisions or other special reasons caused a need to delay manuscript submission beyond the requested duration, the author can submit a request in writing. This publication may extend the revision period as appropriate.
  3. Regarding manuscripts recommended for “additional review after revision,” if the author decides to abandon the revision and provides explanations in writing, the act is not considered a withdrawal as long as the editorial committee agrees.

IV. Editing and Reviewing Process

The editing and revising of manuscripts in this publication is conducted by using the following process:
 

 

 

 

 

Copyright©1985-2018 BULLETIN OF SPECIAL EDUCATION . Contact: Tsai-Ming Chen . All rights reserved. NewHopes Desgin
Address: No.162, Sec. 1, Heping E. Rd., Da’an Dist., Taipei City 106, Taiwan (R.O.C.) TEL: +8867734-5024 FAX: +8862341-3061