About the journal

The Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research (Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, HRRI) is an international journal that publishes original research articles, preliminary reports, reviews, professional papers and other contributions in the fields of education-rehabilitation sciences, speech pathology (logopedics), pedagogy, psychology, linguistics and phonetics, clinical sciences, public health, preventive healthcare, interdisciplinary social sciences and humanities; as well as diverse fields of art related to prevention, screening, evaluation, diagnosis and treatment; and education and other modalities of comprehensive support to individuals with diverse developmental and psychophysical disorders and/or behavioural problems.
HRRI is dedicated primarily to the publication of contemporary scientific and technical insights related to inclusive education and rehabilitation of individuals with learning difficulties, intellectual difficulties and pervasive disorders; education and rehabilitation of individuals with visual or auditory damage, motor disorders or chronic disease; complementary and supportive art therapy; speech pathology topics related to disorders of communication, language, speech, voice and swallowing; and topics from social pedagogy and criminology related to behavioural problems.
Manuscripts should be written entirely in British English but can also be written in Croatian, in which case they should be submitted together with a version in British English.
HRRI prefers to publish articles based on empirical studies, but is also pleased to consider theoretical studies, reviews, professional papers, scientific and expert commentaries as well as book reviews.

Open access

Submission and publication fees

Journal funding

Peer review

Ethical principles in publishing

The Croatian Review of Rehabilitation Research (Hrvatska revija za rehabilitacijska istraživanja, HRRI), like all research journals around the world, takes an ethical approach to the conduct of research and the publication of scientific and technical work. Although the need for ethics in science, which is tightly linked to the notion of responsible research behaviour (Lacković and Borovečki, 2008), is self-explanatory, we are often witnesses to the violation of ethical principles. To enforce these principles, we describe below factors of responsible research behaviour that must be borne in mind before a manuscript can be processed for publication.

The following sections lay out in detail these ethical aspects:

• • • authorship
    • conflicts of interest
    • plagiarism and self-plagiarism
    • data fabrication and falsification

1 . Authorship

Inclusion in the author list of a research or technical article is a confirmation that the individual has the necessary qualifications and takes responsibility for research in the field. It is recommended that researchers agree on the author list before scientific work even begins, in order to avoid misunderstandings and false expectations. As a result, all authors should consent to the author list as written on the manuscript.

In its Ethical Code, the Council on Ethics in Science and Higher Education (OEZVO, 2006) indicates that an individual becomes an author if he or she participates in

(A) development of the research idea or study design

(B) data collection, analysis, or interpretation; or

(C) structuring and writing of the manuscript, or its revision after peer review.

Every author should satisfy at least one of the conditions in each category (A), (B) or (C), and should also be able to (D) defend the intellectual content of the publication.

Any intentionally false representation of an individual's relationship to a publication is considered a form of unethical behaviour that undermines the credibility of the publication itself (Elsevier, 2017). Four forms of authorship are unacceptable to CRRR:

• • • ghost authorship - individuals who satisfy all the criteria of authorship but are not listed among the authors;
    • guest authorship - individuals who have contributed nothing to the publication, yet are listed as authors;
    • gift authorship - individuals who are listed as authors because of a weak contribution to the publication; and
    • planted authorship - individuals who have been listed as authors without their knowledge or consent.

Individuals who make minimal contributions to a manuscript, such as by providing advice about statistical analysis or critical comments about the work, should be named in the Acknowledgments (always with their approval) but not listed as authors.

2. Conflicts of interest

All scientific work should be carried out and reported in accordance with the principles of transparency and objectivity. If any individual in the publication process (author, journal editor, peer reviewer) has interests that threaten these principles, then the possibility of a conflict of interest exists.

Borovečki and Lacković define a conflict of interest as any situation in which financial or other hidden influences can bias professional scientific objectivity and judgement (2008, p. 13). They emphasise that individuals and institutions can have conflicts of interest. They describe two types of conflicts:

• • 1. an evident conflict of interest, which is any situation in which a reasonable individual would conclude that bias exists in professional decision-making; and
    2. a potential conflict of interest, which is any situation in which a conflict of interest can arise.

Avoiding conflicts of interest requires the following measures:

• • • authors should report on the financial support they received for their research in order to ensure that funders are excluded from the evaluation of that research for publication;
    • peer review should not be conducted by individuals who have played any role in the research under review (e.g. the project leader should not review work from his or her own project team) or who are related to the authors;
    • journal editors and members of the Editorial Board should not publish articles in the journal where they work (this potential conflict of interest is regulated by clause d in Article 39 of the new "Regulations on the Conditions for Selection to Scientific Ranks"), and at least two thirds of an individual's scientific publications should be in journals or other media where he or she was not an employee or a member of the editorial board or council when his or her publications appeared.

3. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

Plagiarism is the re-use of someone's idea, data or text without permission or citation, and it can vary from direct copying to paraphrasing. Today, plagiarism is considered the greatest and most widespread ethical misstep in science. Although the concept of plagiarism is easy to define, it can be quite difficult to identify in practice. There is no universal agreement about the criteria to apply (e.g., the amount of copied text) or the editorial procedures to implement in response to potential plagiarism.

Harris (2001) highlights that when preparing a manuscript, the authors should constantly ask whether ideas and words are their own or come from others. If their own, there is no need for citation, but if from others, then the source must be cited. Authors must be aware of their own contribution and cite sources and authors of ideas and words that have helped them develop their research.

HRRI uses Turnitin software to check for plagiarism of all submitted manuscripts at the first stage of review conducted by the journal's Editorial Board. If plagiarism or self-plagiarism is identified, the Editorial Board will act in accordance with the flowchart of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

Generally copying of up to 10% of text is permitted, but only in certain situations, such as where authors take text from another one of their own sources, most often from their undergraduate, diploma or doctoral theses. Even in these cases, the copying must be restricted to presentation of results, descriptions of study subjects and instruments. No overlap is allowed in the Introduction, Discussion or Conclusion. The percentage of overlap is calculated at the level of sentences and paragraphs, not at the level of individual words or phrases.

Self-citation is acceptable only when justified and logical.

When figures, tables or other document are re-used, authors must obtain permission from the original author or publisher. Authors are expected to use appropriately licensed versions of software (e.g. for statistical analysis) and original survey instruments (e.g. original response sheets from all study participants).

4. Data fabrication and falsification

In the three steps of research (data collection, data analysis, data publication), various errors can occur that should be constantly borne in mind. An experienced researcher who follows ethical research principles will reflect on all possible missteps that can occur at each step of the research process, and will strive to ensure that all steps in the process are carried out to the highest ethical standard.

Data fabrication (izmišljanje) and falsification (krivotvorenje) relate to the invention of data that do not exist and to the manipulation of existing data. Deletion or "supplementation" of data leads to false reporting and to false conclusions. To reduce or avoid this abuse, some journals require that authors include their raw research results when they submit manuscripts. Another way to ensure accurate data reporting is to create public data repositories.

The following considerations should be kept in mind while conducting research:

• • 1. Informed consent forms should comprehensively inform potential study subjects about the type of research, the voluntary nature of their participation, guarantee of their anonymity as well as all potential risks and benefits to them.
    2. Informed consent forms should be collected and stored appropriately, and specific procedures should be in place for the collection of consent forms from clinical groups whose ability to grant consent is temporarily or permanently reduced (e.g. individuals with aphasia or children with autism).
    3. Data should be used only for the purposes to which study subjects have consented. Any additional use of the results requires the corresponding informed consent from subjects.
    4. During data analysis, data should not be deleted, hidden, altered or invented to ensure consistency with the original hypotheses.
    5. Data reported in publications should not be invented, in whole or in part.
    6. Analyses and conclusions should be made entirely on the basis of real data.
    7. The same data should not be simultaneously published in multiple journals.
    8. Publications should not reflect salami slicing, in which a larger study is divided into many smaller studies for the purpose of maximising the number of publications.

To avoid deviations from ethical principles, authors should verify the following items before submitting their work to HRRI. Please refer to the Ethical principles in publishing document before you continue.

• • 1. All authors satisfy at least one condition within categories (A), (B) and (C), and satisfy category (D)
    2. All authors agreed on the names and order of the author list.
    3. The Acknowledgments list all individuals who made contributions to the manuscript that were too small to satisfy the authorship criteria of relevant Ethical Codes. Those individuals provided consent to be acknowledged.
    4. The author list is free of guest authors, gift authors and planted authors. All individuals who satisfy authorship criteria are listed in the author list (no ghost authors).
    5. I do not have a potential conflicts of interest OR I have informed the Editorial Board about potential conflicts of interest in the cover letter.
    6. I have indicated the source(s) of research funding OR this study is not funded by any source.
    7. Any re-used ideas or text are properly cited, including paraphrasing.
    8. I have avoided excess and unnecessary self-citation.
    9. The study has been approved by the relevant research ethics body and informed consent forms have been collected OR my manuscript is a review paper.
    10. Informed consent forms were comprehensive and detailed in describing the purpose of the research, and participants' voluntariness and anonymity were guaranteed.
    11. Original, licensed software and survey instruments are used in the manuscript.
    12. This manuscript is consistent with the study objectives described on the informed consent form OR my manuscript is a review paper.
    13. The manuscript reports real data, free of negative influences or manipulation from the authors (if applicable).
    14. The discussion and final conclusions in this manuscript are based on real and accurate data.
    15. This manuscript is currently under consideration for publication only at HRRI.

If you are a potential reviewer, please confirm the following before accepting a request to peer review:

• • 1. You are in no way connected to the research reported in the manuscript.
    2. You have no potential conflicts of interest (e.g. you are not the leader of the authors' research team).