Section Policies

Empirical Papers | Non-Empirical Papers | Registered Reports

Empirical Papers

Empirical papers encompass a range of research articles that contribute to advancing knowledge through the collection and analysis of data. These papers include:

Original Research

Original research studies include mixed methods, qualitative, quantitative, and single-case design studies. Submissions of all types of research should reflect and report rigorous. Authors are also strongly encouraged to follow the guidelines reported in the special issue of Exceptional Children for the conduct of original research (Volume 89, Issue 4, July 2023), which can be found here. Authors should consult the most recent guidelines from the American Psychological Association’s (APA) recommendations for reporting research for quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies; see APA’s Journal Article Reporting Standards. Additionally, authors are strongly encouraged to adhere to open-science practices, including preregistration, open data and materials, and preprinting. For more detailed guidance on open science practices in special education research, please refer to A How-To Guide for Open-Science Practices in Special Education Research.

Secondary Data Analyses

RiSE seeks manuscripts that utilize secondary data analysis to explore research questions and conduct innovative analyses on existing data. Authors should follow the guidelines provided in "Quality Indicators of Secondary Data Analyses in Special Education Research: A Preregistration Guide" by Lombardi et al. (2022), part of the special issue on quality indicators in special education published in Exceptional Children (Volume 89, Issue 4, July 2023). This guide outlines best practices for conducting secondary data analysis in special education research, including the importance of preregistration, transparency in variable reporting, and rigorous statistical methods. For more information, refer to the full article here.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses synthesize findings across studies using a systematic approach. Authors should consult the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, which provide a detailed framework for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For more information, visit PRISMA's website. While not all guidelines may apply to every review, it is crucial to adhere to and report basic practices (e.g., search strategy, selection criteria, coding procedures, analysis methods). Research reviews may also include methodological reviews, systematically examining the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a specific body of literature. Any research review submitted to RiSE must explain how coding procedures, analytic procedures (e.g., SAS, R, or similar code), and actual data will be made available on a permanent, open-source repository. We consider providing these data a valuable contribution to the field, allowing authors and other researchers to build upon existing data rather than starting from scratch for each new meta-analysis. This requirement ensures transparency, facilitates replication, and advances the collective knowledge base in special education research.

Replications

RiSE encourages submissions that report the results of direct and conceptual replication studies. Replication studies submitted to RiSE should include these additional methods and discussion components:

  • Method: The method section should include a detailed description of the replication process. This entails a clear description of how the replication study was designed to remain faithful to or deviate from the original study. To facilitate a comprehensive comparison between the original study and the replication, authors are encouraged to incorporate a table summarizing the key aspects of both studies and how the studies are similar and differ. This table should cover important study variables, tailored to the particulars of the original and replication studies, ensuring that the comparison is relevant and informative, with the understanding that the specific elements included will depend on the nature of each study. Including such a table is intended to provide readers with a clear and concise overview of the similarities and differences between the two studies, thereby enhancing their understanding of the replication's fidelity to the original study and the potential implications of any deviations.
    • Examples of variables that might be compared include, but are not limited to:
      • Participants: Compare the characteristics of participants in both studies, noting any differences in demographics, number of participants, and selection criteria.
      • Intervention Components (as relevant): Detail the interventions used in both studies, highlighting variations in tools, techniques, or methodologies employed.
      • Dependent Variables: Describe the outcomes measured in both studies, identifying any discrepancies in how these variables were defined or measured. 
      • Setting: Describe the setting in both studies, identify key discrepancies and similarities. 
  • Discussion: In the discussion section, authors should explicitly compare the original study's results with those of the replication. This comparison should investigate whether the replication study confirmed or contradicted the original findings and explore potential reasons for the observed outcomes. Considerations might include methodological differences, variations in sample characteristics, or external influences that could have affected the results. Through this analysis, authors should aim to offer insights into the robustness of the original findings and contribute to a deeper understanding of the subject matter.
  • Consideration of Both Successful and Failed Replications: RiSE values the contribution of all replication studies, whether they replicate or fail to replicate the original study's results. Failed replications provide crucial learning opportunities and can lead to significant scientific breakthroughs. Authors of both successful and failed replications are encouraged to submit their work, provided they thoroughly analyze the similarities and differences between the original and replication studies and thoroughly discuss the possible reasons behind their findings.

Non-Empirical Papers

RiSE also welcomes a variety of non-empirical papers that contribute to advancing the field of special education research. These include:

Theoretical and Conceptual Papers

RiSE will consider submissions that examine and advance the field’s understanding of critical issues related to research in special education and related fields through theoretical and conceptual analysis. Authors should make a clear case for the relevance of their analysis and its implications for advancing research in special education and related fields.

How-To Guides for Best Practices in Research

RiSE publishes papers that provide concrete guidance in best practices for conducting and analyzing research in special education and related fields, with a focus on innovative practices. Authors should clearly articulate the importance of the practice in conducting rigorous and relevant research and provide specific recommendations for implementing the suggested practices.

Commentaries and Editorials

Occasionally, the editor(s)-in-chief may invite commentaries or editorials on topical issues from scholars who can provide insights into critical issues. Uninvited commentaries or editorials will not be considered for publication.

Registered Reports

RiSE will consider submissions of Registered Reports, which involve two stages of peer review: (a) study plans submitted and reviewed before the actual conduct of the research work (stage 1) and (b) submission and review of the final research report after the study is completed (stage 2). All study designs (e.g., qualitative, secondary data analyses, single-case designs, group-contrast designs, including novel and replication studies) can be submitted as Registered Reports. Regardless of the methods employed, it is critical that the stage-1 submission explicitly describe the rationale, methods, and analytic processes in the initial submission. Please see Cook et al. (2021), “Registered Reports in Special Education: Introduction to the Special Series” for more information regarding Registered Reports.

Review Process

Registered Reports require two stages of review:

Stage 1

  • Researchers submit an introduction section that includes the rationale, research questions, and hypotheses, along with a detailed description of the proposed methods and analyses before data have been collected.
  • Peer reviewers will evaluate the strength of the rationale and the robustness of the proposed research methods.
  • Based on the reviewers' feedback, the proposed article may be either accepted in principle, rejected, or returned to the authors with requests for revisions to address the reviewers' concerns.
  • If the proposal is accepted in principle, it guarantees publication of the paper, provided that the study is faithfully implemented based on the approved Stage 1 plan.

Stage 2

  • After conducting the study, authors submit the report of the research for stage-2 review.
  • Authors must clearly identify any deviations from the approved research plan in the stage-2 manuscript. Significant deviations from approved research plans may be a cause for a stage-2 submission to be rejected.
  • Supplemental exploratory analyses may be added provided they are reported in a separate subsection and labeled as exploratory.
  • Regardless of the final results, if the researchers have faithfully conducted and reported the research, RiSE will publish the stage-2 manuscript if it is submitted in a timely manner.
  • Citations of accepted stage-1 manuscripts that are withdrawn, rejected, or fail to meet the stage-2 submission deadline will be listed in the journal preview with a link to the online stage-1 submission.