This special issue of Autism in Adulthood will offer an international forum on the State of the Science on topics affecting autistic adults, from emerging adulthood to later life. State of the Science reviews should focus on topics that are meaningful and relevant to autistic individuals, including topics outlined in the Journal's Aims & Scope, here on our website: www.liebertpub.com/aut
We invite focused reviews and reflections in the selected topic area. We especially welcome manuscripts that include autistic authors. Manuscripts should use a research literature synthesis approach appropriate for the nature of the body of evidence and the author's purpose. Authors are invited to submit manuscripts using a variety of approaches and formats:
Systematic Reviews or Meta-Analyses are most appropriate for projects with clearly formulated research questions, and an existing literature base that is sufficient to answer them. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of quantitative evidence should follow the guidelines in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, which can be found at: prisma-statement.org Note, Autism in Adulthood strongly prefers systematic reviews (with or without a meta-analysis) whenever possible.
Conceptual Analyses are well-supported, in-depth, analytic essays advancing theory, practice, or policy. Manuscripts should present a novel idea, develop a new conceptual theory or model, or synthesize the literature in an innovative way.
Scoping Reviews systematically map the literature available on a topic, identifying key concepts, theories, sources of evidence and gaps in the research. They are typically most appropriate for systematically reviewing evidence emergent from diverse research approaches or when empirical evidence is relatively sparse. See guidelines for Scoping Reviews here: https://training.cochrane.org/resource/scoping-reviews-what-they-are-and-how-you-can-do-them
Narrative or Clinical Reviews address broad questions of interest, more sparse bodies of evidence, or topics too new or controversial for a systematic review. They meld expert opinion with a thorough and balanced review of available evidence. Narrative or clinical reviews should address a clear clinical, educational, services, or policy issue and provide practical guidance to the reader.
Perspectives are well-referenced opinions or recommendations on topics related to research, practice, or policy. Authors should heavily cite the literature, while being transparent about their own positionality, experience, and expertise. Perspectives must synthesize and advance the literature in a novel way, through the author(s) own lens(es), not solely review the current state of the science. They may be particularly appropriate in areas where the literature is too sparse or flawed for a typical review.
We strongly encourage interested authors to contact the guest editors as soon as possible to discuss your planned topic, review approach, article type, and fit with the Special Issue.
Please direct any questions about scientific content to the guest editors (e-mail to: anne.kirby@hsc.utah.edu and kemcdona@syr.edu), and any questions regarding the submission process or the Manuscript Central submission system to Karen Cloud-Hansen at kcloudhansen@liebertpub.com
