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: (703) 993-1881 Fax: (703) 993-1359 E-mail:ecrq@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. 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 ECRQ is interested in, but certainly not limited to, issues such as the following:

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 doesn’t set up the questions/hypotheses • Problems with spelling, grammar, writing, English, and APA style • No policy/educational/practice implications given • Conclusions don’t 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