Abstract
We have had the pleasure of editing Exceptional Children (EC) for the past 5 years. During this time, EC has maintained its reputation as a leading scholarly journal for the field of special education and related professions as evidenced by our consistently high impact factor. During our editorship, EC has ranked as the top impact factor journal in special education four of five years with a current 2019 impact factor of 3.255. Along with maintaining reputational excellence, we have also instituted open science reforms in EC including awarding authors badges for engaging in open science practices and accepting Registered Reports as part of our normal submission process. Our open science efforts resulted in EC being recognized by the Center of Open Science as a top ranked journal in all of academic publishing for promoting transparency and openness (https://topfactor.org/). As we pass our 5th year as editors, we thought it was a good time to reflect on and present to our readership what we have published to date. Therefore, the purpose of this Report to the Readership is to openly present and discuss the manuscripts accepted for publication within EC since we became editors.
To initiate our review, we began by compiling all published manuscripts from EC between Volume 82, Issue 2, and Volume 86, Issue 4. After reviewing several volumes published prior to our tenure as editors, we developed a codebook and coding framework. Articles were coded independently by Therrien and our report co-authors, Wilson and McLucas, and consensus was reached through collaborative discussion. Each article was coded for article type, method used, study topic(s), and the group type (e.g., preschoolers, educators, parents) and disability status of the study participants. Articles were further coded to indicate if the study had been pre-registered, had an Open Science Framework (OSF) badge, or was a self-identified replication. After consensus was reached on applicable codes for each article, some codes were collapsed for ease of interpretation. A complete codebook with extended and collapsed codes, the coding framework, and a finalized list of codes for each article can be accessed at https://osf.io/tjahr/. In the remaining portion of this Report to the Readership, we will discuss the coded characteristics of articles published during our time as editors.
A total of 116 articles that were published during our time as editors were coded. These articles included policy papers, editorials, commentaries, original research, literature reviews, and meta-analyses (See Figure 1). Of the 116 articles, 12 (10% of total articles) were policy papers, editorials, or commentaries. These manuscripts included 2 on educational research and policy, 2 on implementation of open science practices, 4 on Response to Intervention (RTI), Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS), and Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and 4 on legal issues within special education.
Article Type
The remaining 104 articles included 84 (73%) original research articles, 9 (8%) literature reviews, and 11 (9%) meta-analyses. A variety of research methods were used within the original research, but the majority of articles were non-experimental manipulated independent variable quantitative research using original datasets (n=30; e.g., survey, assessments), secondary data analyses (n=22), and experimental group interventions (n=18). Published manuscripts also represented a diverse range of topics. Articles could include more than one focal topic (See Figure 2). Of the 104 original research articles, literature reviews, and meta-analyses, 31 focused on literacy including reading and writing, 18 focused on quality of life and life outcomes for individuals with disabilities and their families, 14 focused on mathematics, and 13 focused on teaching practices. Further, diversity within special education, pre-service and in-service teacher training, and disproportionality were the focus of 11 articles each.
Study Topic
EC has remained committed to publishing across the age- span and disability categories represented within the auspices of the Council of Exceptional Children (CEC) (See Figures 3 and 4). The 104 original research articles, literature reviews, and meta-analyses included several types of participant groups, with some articles including more than one. The majority of studies included elementary students (n=61), secondary students (n=49), and educators (n=18) as participants. Study participants also included a broad representation of educators, families, and individuals across disability categories. A significant portion of studies (n=49) were multicategorical in nature in that they included participants from three or more disability populations (not including severe disabilities), or the authors did not specify the exact disability eligibility category. For example, these studies might have included nationally representative data on students with disabilities including students with learning disabilities, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), emotional and behavioral disorder (EBD), etc. Of the remaining studies, 10 included populations with severe disabilities (e.g., co-occurring ASD and ID), 9 included individuals with learning disabilities, 8 included individuals who were at-risk for a disability, 7 included individuals with ASD, and 7 included individuals with EBD.
Study Participant Group
Study Participant Disability
In October 2018, we adopted Open Science practices and began awarding OSF badges for authors who engage in these practices and submit to the journal. At the time of this article review for the Report to the Readership, we have yet to publish a study that had been pre-registered. However, we have awarded 4 OSF badges and 6 studies have been self-identified replications.
We hope the above summary and raw codes and data available at https://osf.io/tjahr/ will provide us, and our readership, with an opportunity to reflect on what has been published in EC over the past 5 years. While we are proud of the broad scope and quality of the articles we have published to date, there is no doubt areas (e.g., topics, disability categories) within the large and diverse field of special education and related professions that have not received the attention they deserve in EC pages during our editorship. During our remaining editorship, our intent is to be proactive in order to identify and address these gaps. Starting in the upcoming months, we will work with our readership, reviewer board, and the leadership of the subdivisions of CEC to identify areas that deserve more attention. We will then develop an action plan to ensure that high quality scholarship, in these important areas, is conducted and published in EC. This action plan will include open calls for publications on identified topics and the use of our Registered Report submission option to solicit and cultivate high quality studies in important, yet understudied areas of inquiry. We invite you to help us with this process. If you have ideas or suggestions, please feel free to reach and send them to us.