Peer Review Policy

RiSE is a peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing high-quality research. Our peer-review process ensures that submitted manuscripts meet rigorous academic standards and contribute meaningfully to the field of special education.

Process

  1. Initial Screening: Manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editorial team for relevance and adherence to submission guidelines.
  2. Reviewer Selection: Selected manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant area.
  3. Review Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on relevance, methodology, clarity, ethics, implications, and adherence to open-science practices.
  4. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers provide constructive feedback and recommend one of the following actions: Accept, Minor revisions, Major revisions, or Reject.
  5. Editorial Decision: The editorial team makes the final decision, considering the reviewers' recommendations and feedback.

Templates for Reviewing

We use three specific templates for reviewing based on the type of article submission:

1. Empirical Articles 

Reviewers are asked to comment on the following, as relevant:

  • Adequacy of reviewing relevant research and/or theory to provide an appropriate context for the study.
  • Clarity of study purpose, research questions, and/or hypotheses.
  • Open science practices including: study preregistration, open data, code, and materials.
  • Clarity/thoroughness and rigor of methods.
  • Clarity and completeness in reporting of results.
  • Appropriateness of discussion of findings, including limitations and appropriate implications/recommendations of findings.
  • Overall rigor and relevance.

2. Non-Empirical Articles 

Reviewers are asked to comment on the following, as relevant:

  • Adequacy and clarity of the importance/relevance of the issue being addressed for special education research (and/or related fields).
  • Adequacy of reviewing relevant research and/or theory to provide an appropriate context for the paper.
  • Providing meaningful and appropriate recommendations for research in special education (and/or related fields).
  • Whether and how the paper provides a meaningful contribution to the literature base in special education research (and/or related fields).
  • Overall rigor and relevance.

3. Registered Reports

Stage 1 Registered Reports Reviews 

Reviewers are asked to comment on the following, as relevant:

  • Rationale and Background: Assess the thoroughness of the rationale, including any pilot/non-registered findings. Evaluate the relevance of results of the proposed study even if the null hypothesis is not rejected.
  • Research Context: Evaluate the adequacy of reviewing relevant research and/or theory to provide an appropriate context for the study.
  • Study Purpose: Assess the clarity of the study purpose, research questions, and/or hypotheses.
  • Methods and Analyses: Assess the clarity, thoroughness, and rigor of methods and proposed analyses. Ensure the study is sufficiently powered, especially for group contrast studies.
  • Overall Rigor and Relevance: Evaluate the overall rigor and relevance of the proposed study.

Stage 2 Registered Report Reviews 

Reviewers are asked to comment on the following, as relevant:

  • Adherence to Plan: Verify that the final report follows the original research plan. Ensure the authors clearly identify and justify any deviations; significant deviations may lead to rejection.
  • Presentation of Findings: Evaluate the clarity and completeness of the presentation of study findings. Verify that any exploratory analyses are in a separate, clearly labeled subsection.
  • Discussion of Findings: Assess the appropriateness of the discussion, including limitations and implications/recommendations of findings.