Focus and Scope

The journal publishes original research and review articles, including field research related to:

Disability: Perspective Social, Education, Learning & Humanities

Disability: Perspective Health, Law & Human Right

Disability: Perspective Economics, Policym Assistive Technology, & Disaster

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The peer review practice is intended to ensure that the published material are of sound quality. It is considered as the heart of good scholarly publication and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal of Disability and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below. The submission and review process will be carried out online through the Online Journal System.

Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editors first evaluate all papers. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. The article rejection at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least 1 expert for review.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2-3 weeks of paper reception.

Type of peer review
This journal employs a blind review, where the author and referee remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the referee is selected
Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database is constantly being updated. We welcome suggestions for referees from the author though these recommendations are not necessarily used.

Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
– Is original.
– Is comply with the focus and scope of the journal.
– Makes a theoretical contribution to the study of family business.
– Is methodologically sound.
– Follows appropriate ethical guidelines.
– Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions.
– Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How long does the review process take?
The time required for the review process is depend on the response of the referees. However, the typical time for the Journal of Disability is approximately 2-4 weeks. Should the referees' reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee's report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee's report. The Editor's decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

The Editor's decision is final
Referees advise the Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Plagiarism Check  
The journal advocates the integrity and credibility of the published papers. Plagiarism is against our policies. We request similarity report of maximum 30%.

Becoming a referee for the Journal of Disability.

If you are not currently a referee for the Journal of Disability but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editorial office at: journalofdisability@mail.uns.ac.id . The benefits of refereeing for the Journal of Disability (JoD) include the opportunity to read, see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of academic research and its published documentation.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Copyright and Permissions

Journal of Disability suggests that the authors would retain the copyright of their works. It also encourages the publication of the work published in Journal of Disability into any other community sharing format (i.e. researchgate) by the author or other interested parties. 

Journal of Disability, however, requests that the latest version of the publication cites the initial published version in Journal of Disability.   

Publication Ethics

For all parties involved in the publication process (the author, the journal editor(s), the peer reviewer and the publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour. The ethics statements for the Journal of Disability are based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Peer-reviewed Publication.

DUTIES OF THE EDITORS-IN-CHIEF

Fair play

The evaluation of submitted manuscripts are concerning papers’ academic content

regardless authors race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy. A first come first serve principle is the common norm. 

Confidentiality

Information about a submitted manuscript shall not be disclosed by the Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staffs to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and the publisher.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Material disclosed in a submitted manuscript whether published or unpublished must not be used in an Editor’s own research and publication. Written consent of the author(s) should be sought for further collaboration. In this regard, the correspondence and collaboration beyond the journal’s interest.

Publication decisions

The Editor-in-Chief is the one who responsible for deciding the articles to be published in any issue. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements to enforce the rule against libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

DUTIES OF PEER REVIEWERS

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer reviewers contribute to academic discourse by assisting the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions. Peer reviewers also assist the author in improving the submitted manuscript through editorial communication with the author.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or knows that timely response will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief. It is the Editor in-Chief’s responsibility to alternate between potential reviewers.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts assigned for review must be treated as confidential documents. The Editor-in-chief’s permission must be sought prior to show or discuss the manuscript with others.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively by expressing their views clearly with the appropriate rationale and supporting arguments. The criticism of the author is unacceptable.

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 data of which they have personal knowledge.

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 evaluating 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 submission.

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting standards

Authors reporting results 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 manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

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. The publisher provides an automated scan for plagiarism when a manuscript is submitted online.

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. Parallel submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of sources

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

Authorship of a manuscript

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 named in an Acknowledgement section.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list of the manuscript and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All co-authors must be clearly indicated as of the moment of manuscript submission. Adding co-authors at a later stage will not be accepted.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

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

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’s Editor-in-Chief or publisher and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.

PUBLISHER’S CONFIRMATION

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism the publisher, in close collaboration with the Editors-in-Chief, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum or, in the most severe cases, the complete retraction of the affected works.

HUMAN SUBJECT PROTECTION

Journal of Disability adheres to the Human Subject Protection. It encourages research reports submitted to JOD to comply with local/national regulations and ethical considerations to ensure that human subjects are adequately protected from unreasonable risks and adequately informed of the potential harms and benefits of their research participation. 

However, it is the author's responsibility to obtain ethical clearance subject to research sponsor/donor/institution requirements before conducting research involving human participants and their data or tissue. The written consent from the research participant should be kept and - when requested - should be disclosed to the editor of JOD.  

JOD adopts the definition of 'human research' that includes:

• humans taking part in surveys, interviews, or focus groups
• humans undergoing psychological, physiological, or medical testing or treatment
• humans being observed by researchers
• researchers having access to participants' documents or other materials
• the collection and use of participants' body organs, tissues, or fluids (such as skin, blood, urine, saliva, hair, bones, tumors, and other biopsy specimens, or exhaled breath)
• accessing participants' information (in individually identifiable, re-identifiable, or non-identifiable form) as part of an existing published or unpublished source or database
• Accessing health information, personal information, and sensitive information for research purposes.

Informed Consent

Researchers must provide subjects with sufficient information in an understandable format to make a voluntary decision whether or not to participate in the study. The informed consent process is fundamental in ensuring respect for persons and should educate the subject about the research, the benefits and risks, and the voluntary nature of their participation.

Screening for Plagiarism

1. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed;
2. 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;
3. 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;
4. 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.

Working Process:

1. Editorial Team checking manuscript on offline and online database manually (checking proper citation and quotation);
2. Editorial Team checking manuscript by using Turnitin app. If it is found plagiarism indication (more than 25%), the board will reject the manuscript immediately.