Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ)

1
Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ)

• Submission to ECRQ is online
  http//ees.elsevier.com/ecrq/
• Editor, Adam Winsler, Ph.D.
• Editorial Office
• ECRQ
• Applied Developmental Psychology
• Department of Psychology 3F5
• George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
  22030
• Tel [phone] Fax [phone] E-mailecr
  q_at_gmu.edu
• Managing Editor, Erin Richard
• Editorial Assistant, Elif Bor, Yoon Kim

2
Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ)
Mission/Scope

• Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ), now in
  its 22nd year, is an applied, scholarly journal
  that publishes empirical research that meets the
  highest standards of scholarly and practical
  significance.
• ECRQ publishes predominantly empirical research
  reports, but also occasional significant reviews
  of research and practitioner/policy perspectives
• Sound quantitative, mixed, and/or qualitative
  methods of inquiry are considered
• Content must be of interest to early childhood
  (ages 0-8) theory and practice
• ECRQ is affiliated with the National
  Association for the Education of Young Children
  (NAEYC) however, editorial operations are
  independent

3
ECRQ is interested in, but certainly not limited
to, issues such as the following

• Childcare, program quality, and children's
  transition to school
• The efficacy of early intervention and prevention
  programs
• Public policy, early childhood education, and
  child development
• Best classroom practices and effective early
  childhood curricula
• Professional development and training for early
  childhood practitioners
• Multicultural, international, and inclusive early
  care and education
• Children's social, emotional, cognitive,
  behavioral, biological, language, motivational,
  cultural, and motor development applied to early
  childhood settings
• Immigration, culture, health, and child
  development

4
Early Childhood Research Quarterly (ECRQ)
Editorial Team (2007)

• Editor Adam Winsler
• Associate Editors Robert H. Bradley, Margaret
  Burchinal, Pamela Garner, Penny Hauser-Cram,
  Abraham Sagi-Schwartz, Barbara A. Wasik
• Editorial Board Steven Barnett, Karen Diamond,
  John Fantuzzo, Dale Farran, Craig Hart, Sandra
  Machida, Helen Penn, Sara Rimm-Kaufman, Angela
  Taylor
• Consulting Editors Lynette Aytch, Mindy Blaise,
  William Brown, Donna Bryant, Juan Casas, Judith
  Chafel, Debby Cryer, Renee deKruif, Darlane
  DeMarie, Susanne Denham, Diane Early, Ann
  Epstein, Nancy File, Ellen Frede, Kathleen
  Gallagher, Walter Gilliam, Herb Ginsburg, Susan
  Grieshaber, Dominic Gullo, Claire Hamilton, Mary
  Jensen, Karen LaParo, Kofi Marfo, Brent McBride,
  Megan McClelland, David McPhee, Harry Morgan,
  Regena Nelson, Samuel Odom, Jamie Ostrov, Germán
  Posada, Clyde Robinson, Sharon Ryan, Catherine
  Scott-Little, Monique Sénéchal, Susan
  Sonnenschein, Alan I. Sugawara, Bruce Thompson,
  Marinus van Ijzendoorn, Dale Walker
• Managing Editor Erin Richard
• Editorial Assistant Elif Bor, Yoon Kim

5
Early Childhood Research Quarterly Review
Process

• Number of manuscripts received in 2006 217
• (172 new, 45 revisions)
• Review process double-blind
• Total number of
• reviewers 425
• Typical number of reviewers per article 3

6
Manuscript Flow (all electronic)

• Author submits manuscript documents on website,
  then checks and approves the PDF file produced
• Managing editor checks manuscript and either
• sends back to author for small formatting fixes
  to correct and resubmit, or sometimes fixes some
  smaller things herself and
• Forwards to editor in chief
• Editor conducts initial review to determine if
  manuscript is appropriate for ECRQ scope and
  ready for review, and if so, decides on
  action/associate editor and forwards
• Action editor chooses typically 3 reviewers
• Reviewers submit their review online
• Action editor writes decision letter and
  submits to editorial office
• Editorial office sends email to corresponding
  author on outcome

7
Review Process (Average Timetable)

• 2006 average turn around time 55.8 days
• (duration from first submission until author
  receives disposition)
• Average days till reviewers respond to
• invitation 2.8
• Average days for reviewers to complete
• review 27
• Average elapsed time from acceptance to
• Downloadable uncorrected PDF proofs online 5
  days
• Downloadable PDF compiled in online issue 110
  days
• Physical print issue 140 days

8
2006 Outcome Statistics

• Original submission
• Reject without review 25
• Reject 27.9
• Revise/Resubmit rate 39.9
• Accept/Acceptance with revisions 7.1
• - includes revisions from the old office)

9
Revision Outcomes

• (includes revisions from the previous office)
• Initial Revision
• Acceptance 5.6
• Acceptance with revisions 66.7
• Revise/Resubmit 27.8
• Second Revision
• Acceptance 44.4
• Acceptance with revisions 55.6
• Third Revision
• Acceptance 100
• Take home message Revise outcome is good, we
  want to help you publish this paper!

10
2006 Acceptance Rate

• Total number of editor decisions on 2006
  manuscripts 149
• Total number of accepted manuscripts 21
• 2006 acceptance rate 21/149 14
• This rate does not include
• - papers that have not yet been resubmitted
• - revisions received but still under review
• - revisions accepted/rejected in 2007

11
Historical Submission Statistics
12
Far-Reaching Impact

• ECRQ received 47 international submissions
• from 20 different countries in 2006
• 2006 Impact Factor 0.951 (and rising!)

13
Satisfaction with Journal

• 94.1 of authors reported being very satisfied
  with ECRQ
• Overall, authors rated ECRQ higher than key
  competitor journals (including Child Development)
• Specifically, authors rated ECRQ higher than
  competitors in the areas of
• Referee standard / reviewers
• Editors and editorial board
• Publishing services

14
Top 10 Reasons Manuscripts are Rejected from ECRQ
(and other journals)

• Not enough methodological detail or clarity
  provided
• No clear focused, specific, research
  questions/goals articulated
• Literature review doesnt set up the
  questions/hypotheses
• Problems with spelling, grammar, writing,
  English, and APA style
• No policy/educational/practice implications given
• Conclusions dont follow from the data (could
  have made the points in the discussion without
  doing the study)
• Contribution to the literature unclear
• Bad fit between research goals and
  method/design/analysis
• Poor fit between content of paper and scope of
  journal
• Poor data analyses or design

15
General Tips for Young Scholars

• Look at several issues of the journal first to
  see the type and style of articles published in
  the journal
• Follow the submission procedures carefully
• Give drafts of your paper to colleagues, friends,
  family to read first before submission
• Proofread carefully before submission
• Follow APA style to the letter
• Do a detailed, clear revise/resubmit letter -
  point by point
• Do revise and resubmit if offered
• Pick your top 3-5 relevant journals and write an
  email to the editor offering to be a reviewer -
  attach CV
• Persist, Persist, Persist

16
Areas in Need of Study

• Childcare, preschool experiences, and school
  continuity/readiness for young immigrant children
• We need to challenge ourselves to really get into
  issues of culture (meanings, practices, values,
  beliefs, attitudes, religion, language etc) in
  our studies and be sure to go beyond pan-ethnic
  or pan-immigrant terms and comparisons (simple
  ethnic/race group differences or 1st vs. 2nd.
  generation immigrant vs. not immigrant)
• Migrant children and families
• Discrimination, attitudes and practices toward
  immigrants/migrants in early schooling
• What types of instruction/curriculum/intervention
  work well with what types of children for which
  types of outcomes
• Mobility while here can sometimes be a good thing
  for families/children? - active attempt to
  improve situation