Early Childhood Research Quarterly Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ)(ECRQ)

• • Submission to ECRQ is online: Submission to ECRQ is online: http://http://eesees..elsevierelsevier.com/.com/ecrqecrq// • • Editor, Adam Winsler, Ph.D.Editor, Adam Winsler, Ph.D.• • Editorial Office:Editorial Office:

ECRQECRQApplied Developmental PsychologyApplied Developmental PsychologyDepartment of Psychology – 3F5Department of Psychology – 3F5George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA 22030George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA 22030Tel: (703) 993-1881Tel: (703) 993-1881 Fax: (703) 993-1359Fax: (703) 993-1359 E-mail:E-mail:ecrqecrq@@gmugmu..eduedu

• • Managing Editor, Erin RichardManaging Editor, Erin Richard• • Editorial Assistant, Elif Bor, Yoon KimEditorial Assistant, Elif Bor, Yoon Kim

Early Childhood Research Quarterly Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) Mission/Scope(ECRQ) Mission/Scope

• Early Childhood Research QuarterlyEarly Childhood Research Quarterly ( (ECRQ), ECRQ), now in its now in its 22nd year, is an applied, scholarly journal that publishes 22nd year, is an applied, scholarly journal that publishes empirical research that meets the highest standards of empirical research that meets the highest standards of scholarly and practical significance. scholarly and practical significance.

• • ECRQECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research publishes predominantly empirical research reports, but also occasional significant reviews of research reports, but also occasional significant reviews of research and practitioner/policy perspectivesand practitioner/policy perspectives

• • Sound quantitative, mixed, and/or qualitative methods of Sound quantitative, mixed, and/or qualitative methods of inquiry are consideredinquiry are considered

• • Content must be of interest to early childhood (ages 0-8) Content must be of interest to early childhood (ages 0-8) theory and practice theory and practice

• • ECRQ is affiliated with the National Association for the ECRQ is affiliated with the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC); however, Education of Young Children (NAEYC); however, editorial operations are independent editorial operations are independent

• Childcare, program quality, and children's transition to Childcare, program quality, and children's transition to school school

• The efficacy of early intervention and prevention programsThe efficacy of early intervention and prevention programs• Public policy, early childhood education, and child Public policy, early childhood education, and child

developmentdevelopment• Best classroom practices and effective early childhood Best classroom practices and effective early childhood

curriculacurricula• Professional development and training for early childhood Professional development and training for early childhood

practitionerspractitioners• Multicultural, international, and inclusive early care and Multicultural, international, and inclusive early care and

educationeducation• Children's social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral, Children's social, emotional, cognitive, behavioral,

biological, language, motivational, cultural, and motor biological, language, motivational, cultural, and motor development applied to early childhood settingsdevelopment applied to early childhood settings

• Immigration, culture, health, and child developmentImmigration, culture, health, and child development

ECRQ is interested in, but certainly not ECRQ is interested in, but certainly not limited to, issues such as the following:limited to, issues such as the following:

Early Childhood Research Quarterly Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ) Editorial Team(ECRQ) Editorial Team (2007) (2007)

Editor: Adam WinslerEditor: Adam Winsler

Associate Editors: Associate Editors: Robert H. Bradley, Margaret Burchinal, Pamela Garner, Robert H. Bradley, Margaret Burchinal, Pamela Garner, Penny Hauser-Cram, Abraham Sagi-Schwartz, Barbara A. WasikPenny Hauser-Cram, Abraham Sagi-Schwartz, Barbara A. Wasik

Editorial Board:Editorial Board: Steven Barnett, Karen Diamond, Steven Barnett, Karen Diamond, John Fantuzzo, John Fantuzzo, Dale Farran, Dale Farran, Craig Hart, Sandra Machida, Helen Penn, Sara Rimm-Kaufman, Angela Craig Hart, Sandra Machida, Helen Penn, Sara Rimm-Kaufman, Angela TaylorTaylor

Consulting Editors: Lynette Aytch, Mindy Blaise, William Brown, Donna Consulting Editors: Lynette Aytch, Mindy Blaise, William Brown, Donna Bryant, Juan Casas, Judith Chafel, Debby Cryer, Renee deKruif, Darlane Bryant, Juan Casas, Judith Chafel, Debby Cryer, Renee deKruif, Darlane DeMarie, Susanne Denham, Diane Early, Ann Epstein, Nancy File, Ellen DeMarie, Susanne Denham, Diane Early, Ann Epstein, Nancy File, Ellen Frede, Kathleen Gallagher, Walter Gilliam, Herb Ginsburg, Susan Frede, Kathleen Gallagher, Walter Gilliam, Herb Ginsburg, Susan Grieshaber, Dominic Gullo, Claire Hamilton, Mary JensenGrieshaber, Dominic Gullo, Claire Hamilton, Mary Jensen, Karen LaParo, , Karen LaParo, Kofi Marfo, Brent McBride, Megan McClelland, David McPhee, Harry Kofi Marfo, Brent McBride, Megan McClelland, David McPhee, Harry Morgan, Regena Nelson, Morgan, Regena Nelson, Samuel Odom, Jamie Ostrov, Germán Posada, Samuel Odom, Jamie Ostrov, Germán Posada, Clyde Robinson, Sharon Ryan, Catherine Scott-Little, Clyde Robinson, Sharon Ryan, Catherine Scott-Little, Monique Sénéchal, Monique Sénéchal, Susan Sonnenschein, Susan Sonnenschein, Alan I. Sugawara, Bruce Thompson, Alan I. Sugawara, Bruce Thompson, Marinus van Marinus van Ijzendoorn, Ijzendoorn, Dale WalkerDale Walker

Managing Editor: Erin RichardManaging Editor: Erin RichardEditorial Assistant: Elif Bor, Yoon KimEditorial Assistant: Elif Bor, Yoon Kim

Early Childhood Research Quarterly Early Childhood Research Quarterly Review ProcessReview Process

• Number of manuscripts Number of manuscripts received in 2006 = 217 received in 2006 = 217 ((172 new, 45 revisions172 new, 45 revisions))

• Review process = double-Review process = double-blindblind

• Total number of Total number of reviewers: 425reviewers: 425

• Typical number of Typical number of reviewers per article: 3reviewers per article: 3

Manuscript Flow (all electronic)Manuscript Flow (all electronic)• Author submits manuscript documents on website, then Author submits manuscript documents on website, then

checks and approves the PDF file produced checks and approves the PDF file produced • Managing editor checks manuscript and either: Managing editor checks manuscript and either:

1)1) sends back to author for small formatting fixes to correct and sends back to author for small formatting fixes to correct and resubmit, or sometimes fixes some smaller things herself andresubmit, or sometimes fixes some smaller things herself and

2)2) Forwards to editor in chiefForwards to editor in chief

• • Editor conducts initial review to determine if manuscript is Editor conducts initial review to determine if manuscript is appropriate for ECRQ scope and ready for review, and if so, appropriate for ECRQ scope and ready for review, and if so, decides on action/associate editor and forwardsdecides on action/associate editor and forwards

• • Action editor chooses typically 3 reviewersAction editor chooses typically 3 reviewers• • Reviewers submit their review onlineReviewers submit their review online• • Action editor writes decision letter and submits to editorial Action editor writes decision letter and submits to editorial

officeoffice• • Editorial office sends email to corresponding author on Editorial office sends email to corresponding author on

outcomeoutcome

Review Process (Average Timetable)Review Process (Average Timetable)

• 2006 average turn around time = 55.8 days2006 average turn around time = 55.8 days(duration from first submission until author receives (duration from first submission until author receives disposition) disposition)

• Average days till reviewers respond to Average days till reviewers respond to invitation = 2.8invitation = 2.8• Average days for reviewers to complete Average days for reviewers to complete

review = 27review = 27• Average elapsed time from acceptance to: Average elapsed time from acceptance to:

• Downloadable uncorrected PDF proofs online = 5 daysDownloadable uncorrected PDF proofs online = 5 days• Downloadable PDF compiled in online issue = 110 daysDownloadable PDF compiled in online issue = 110 days• Physical print issue ≈ 140 daysPhysical print issue ≈ 140 days

2006 Outcome Statistics 2006 Outcome Statistics

Original submissionOriginal submission• Reject without review = 25%Reject without review = 25%• Reject = 27.9 %Reject = 27.9 %• Revise/Resubmit rate ≈ 39.9 %Revise/Resubmit rate ≈ 39.9 %• Accept/Acceptance with revisions ≈ 7.1 %Accept/Acceptance with revisions ≈ 7.1 %

- includes revisions from the old office)- includes revisions from the old office)

Revision OutcomesRevision Outcomes(includes revisions from the previous office)(includes revisions from the previous office)

Initial Revision Initial Revision • Acceptance ≈ 5.6%Acceptance ≈ 5.6%• Acceptance with revisions ≈ 66.7 % Acceptance with revisions ≈ 66.7 % • Revise/Resubmit ≈ 27.8 %Revise/Resubmit ≈ 27.8 %

Second RevisionSecond Revision• Acceptance ≈ 44.4 %Acceptance ≈ 44.4 %• Acceptance with revisions ≈ 55.6 %Acceptance with revisions ≈ 55.6 %

Third RevisionThird Revision• Acceptance: 100 %Acceptance: 100 %

Take home message = Revise outcome is good, we want to help you publish Take home message = Revise outcome is good, we want to help you publish this paper!this paper!

2006 Acceptance Rate2006 Acceptance Rate

• Total number of editor decisions on 2006 Total number of editor decisions on 2006 manuscripts: 149manuscripts: 149

• Total number of accepted manuscripts: 21Total number of accepted manuscripts: 21• 2006 acceptance rate: 21/149 = 2006 acceptance rate: 21/149 = 14%14%

This rate does not include:This rate does not include:- papers that have not yet been resubmitted- papers that have not yet been resubmitted- revisions received but still under review- revisions received but still under review- revisions accepted/rejected in 2007 - revisions accepted/rejected in 2007

Historical Submission StatisticsHistorical Submission Statistics

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2004 2005 2006

total # ofsubmissions

# of newsubmissions

# of revisedsubmissions

Far-Reaching ImpactFar-Reaching ImpactECRQ received 47 international submissions ECRQ received 47 international submissions

from 20 different countries in 2006from 20 different countries in 2006

2006 Impact Factor = 0.951 (and rising!) 2006 Impact Factor = 0.951 (and rising!)

0.564

0.703

0.951

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9

1

Impact Factor

2004 2005 2006

Year

Satisfaction with JournalSatisfaction with Journal• 94.1% of authors reported being “very satisfied” with ECRQ94.1% of authors reported being “very satisfied” with ECRQ• Overall, authors rated ECRQ higher than key competitor journals Overall, authors rated ECRQ higher than key competitor journals

(including Child Development)(including Child Development)• Specifically, authors rated ECRQ higher than competitors in the Specifically, authors rated ECRQ higher than competitors in the

areas of:areas of:• Referee standard / reviewersReferee standard / reviewers• Editors and editorial boardEditors and editorial board• Publishing servicesPublishing services

55.5

66.5

77.5

88.5

99.510

Referee Standard Editorial Board Publishing Services

CompetitorsECRQ

73.2

76.9

60

6264

66

68

7072

74

7678

80

Overall Rating

Top 10 Reasons Manuscripts are Top 10 Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected from ECRQ Rejected from ECRQ (and other journals)(and other journals)

1)1) Not enough methodological detail or clarity providedNot enough methodological detail or clarity provided2)2) No clear focused, specific, research questions/goals No clear focused, specific, research questions/goals

articulatedarticulated3)3) Literature review doesn’t set up the questions/hypothesesLiterature review doesn’t set up the questions/hypotheses4)4) Problems with spelling, grammar, writing, English, and Problems with spelling, grammar, writing, English, and

APA styleAPA style5)5) No policy/educational/practice implications givenNo policy/educational/practice implications given6)6) Conclusions don’t follow from the data (could have made Conclusions don’t follow from the data (could have made

the points in the discussion without doing the study)the points in the discussion without doing the study)7)7) Contribution to the literature unclearContribution to the literature unclear8)8) Bad fit between research goals and method/design/analysisBad fit between research goals and method/design/analysis9)9) Poor fit between content of paper and scope of journalPoor fit between content of paper and scope of journal10)10) Poor data analyses or designPoor data analyses or design

General Tips for “Young” ScholarsGeneral Tips for “Young” Scholars

1)1) Look at several issues of the journal first to see the type Look at several issues of the journal first to see the type and style of articles published in the journaland style of articles published in the journal

2)2) Follow the submission procedures carefullyFollow the submission procedures carefully3)3) Give drafts of your paper to colleagues, friends, family to Give drafts of your paper to colleagues, friends, family to

read first before submissionread first before submission4)4) Proofread carefully before submissionProofread carefully before submission5)5) Follow APA style to the letterFollow APA style to the letter6)6) Do a detailed, clear revise/resubmit letter - point by pointDo a detailed, clear revise/resubmit letter - point by point7)7) Do revise and resubmit if offeredDo revise and resubmit if offered8)8) Pick your top 3-5 relevant journals and write an email to Pick your top 3-5 relevant journals and write an email to

the editor offering to be a reviewer - attach CV the editor offering to be a reviewer - attach CV 9)9) Persist, Persist, PersistPersist, Persist, Persist

Areas in Need of Study Areas in Need of Study

1)1) Childcare, preschool experiences, and school Childcare, preschool experiences, and school continuity/readiness for young immigrant childrencontinuity/readiness for young immigrant children

2)2) We need to challenge ourselves to really get into issues of We need to challenge ourselves to really get into issues of culture (meanings, practices, values, beliefs, attitudes, culture (meanings, practices, values, beliefs, attitudes, religion, language etc…) in our studies and be sure to go religion, language etc…) in our studies and be sure to go beyond pan-ethnic or “pan-immigrant” terms and beyond pan-ethnic or “pan-immigrant” terms and comparisons (simple ethnic/race group differences or 1st comparisons (simple ethnic/race group differences or 1st vs. 2nd. generation immigrant vs. not immigrant)vs. 2nd. generation immigrant vs. not immigrant)

3)3) Migrant children and familiesMigrant children and families4)4) Discrimination, attitudes and practices toward Discrimination, attitudes and practices toward

immigrants/migrants in early schoolingimmigrants/migrants in early schooling5)5) What types of instruction/curriculum/intervention work What types of instruction/curriculum/intervention work

well with what types of children for which types of well with what types of children for which types of outcomesoutcomes

6)6) Mobility while here can sometimes be a good thing for Mobility while here can sometimes be a good thing for families/children? - active attempt to improve situationfamilies/children? - active attempt to improve situation