Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The aim of Journal of Accessibility and Design for All is to publish theoretical and empirical articles, that contrast and extend existing theories, and build new theories that contribute to the understanding of phenomena related with aspects of universal design and equal opportunities for people with disabilities.

JACCES includes contributions, but not limited to, in the following fields: (1) Engineering, (2) Architecture and Construction, (3) Health and Medical Care, (4) Education, (5) Society and Economy. The contributions can adopt confirmatory (quantitative) or explanatory (mainly qualitative) methodological approaches. Theoretical essays that enhance the building or extension of theoretical approaches are also welcome.

JACCES selects the articles for publishing on a double-blind, peer review system, following the practices of good scholarly journals. JACCES is published six-monthly on-line following an open access policy. Moreover, JACCES defends that open access publishing fosters the advance of scientific knowledge, making it available to everyone. Since it is an international journal, JACCES publishes papers in English. Publishing in JACCES is free of charges.

 

 

Section Policies

Engineering

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Architecture and Construction

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Health and Medical Care

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Education

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Society and Economics

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Special issue

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Journal (complete version)

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Journal articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Journal of Accessibility and Design for All selects its articles following a double blind, peer review process. Once the editorial team has checked that the contribution follows the formatting and content author guidelines, it is sent to two anonymous external reviewers with expertise in the field.
Grounded on reviewer's recommendations, the editor will communicate the results of the evaluation to the corresponding author. The editor will communicate the overall result of the evaluation (rejected, accepted or accepted with modifications), including the reviewer's comments.
If the article has been accepted with modifications, authors should send back to the journal a new version of the article, which will be reviewed again by the same team of reviewers. Moreover, authors can attach a letter to the editor, which should indicate the modifications made in the article following the editor's and reviewer's comments. If the authors decide not to follow a particular reviewer's instruction, they can expose in the same letter their reasons for not doing so.

 

Publication Frequency

Journal of Accessibility and Design for All is published twice a year (May and November), on a semester (six months) basis. The two issues of one year are the two numbers of one volume. Occasionally, JACCES can publish special issues about specific research themes. These special issues can have specific editors. For these special issues, specific calls for papers will be announced.

 

Open Access Policy

This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.

 

Ethics policies

Duties for Authors

(Based on existing Elsevier policies, COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and APEI Report about Publication on Scientific Journals by Tomás Baiget & Daniel Torres-Salinas, and Plagiarism.org).

Reporting standards

Authors of papers 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.

Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be 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.

Originality and scientific misconduct

Articles submitted in the journal must be entirely original. For that purpose, there are some conducts that must be complied on the grounds of ethical publishing behavior. Falsification, fabrication and plagiarism are considered scientific misconduct and are not acceptable.

  • Fabrication: making up part or the entirety of the research data or results.
  • Falsification: change or manipulate research materials, equipment or processes; change or omit data or results; misrepresent the true results of the data collected; add data collected outside the data collection period.
  • Plagiarism: there are many forms of plagiarisms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper without attribution. (plagiarism.org, APEI report, COPE):
    • Turning in someone else’s work as your own.
    • Using other’s ideas, words or figures as your own without giving credit.
    • Failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
    • Giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
    • Claiming results if research conducted by others.
    • Copying so many words or ideas from a source that results the article in less than the 50% of novelty, whether you give credit or not.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

Authors should not republish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in different journals, despite it be under a different title or in different languages, nor submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. This behavior is unethical and unacceptable.

Authors should not either reuse portions of their own previously published research without mentioning the source.

Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced.

Acknowledgment 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. In-text citations should follow Apa style.

Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.  Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.

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 less substantial contributions to the research should be listed in the acknowledgment section.

Responsibility for the correct attribution of authorship lies with authors themselves working under the guidance of their institution. Research institutions should promote and uphold fair and accepted standards of authorship and acknowledgment. When required, institutions should adjudicate in authorship disputes and should ensure that due process is followed.

Corresponding author from the research paper should ensure that all appropriate 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.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animal or human subjects, the author should ensure that the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them.

Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human subjects. The privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.

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.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.

Duties for Editors

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).
 
Publication decisions

The editor of the peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. 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 (or society officers) n making this decision.

Fair play

An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

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.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or onther member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers.

Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.

It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.

Non-peer reviewed sections of their journal should be clearly identified.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society).

Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties of reviewers

(These guidelines are based on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the main editor and guest editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. All scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.

  • 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.

  •  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.

  • Standards of objectivity

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

  •  Acknowledgment 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.

  • Disclosure and conflict of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.

 

 

Journal Metrics

Scimago Journal & Country Rank

SCImago Journal & Country Rank

SCOPUS Journal Metrics

Details