Aims and Scope
Assistive Technology® is an applied, scientific publication in the multi-disciplinary field of technology for people with disabilities. The journal's purpose is to foster communication among individuals working in all aspects of the assistive technology arena including researchers, developers, clinicians, educators and consumers. The journal will consider papers from all assistive technology applications. Only original papers will be accepted. Technical notes describing preliminary techniques, procedures, or findings of original scientific research may also be submitted. Letters to the Editor are welcome. Books for review may be submitted to the Editor in Chief by authors or publishers. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees. All peer review is double blind and submission is online via ScholarOne Manuscripts.
All measurements should be indicated in both the US measurement system and metric.
Details of Style
- Journal article: Jutai, J.W., Rigby, P., Ryan, S., & Stickel, S. (2000). Psychosocial impact of electronic aids to daily living. Assistive Technology, 12, 123–131.
- Book: Staney, K.M. (2002). Handbook of virtual environments: Design, implementation, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Proceedings or Chapter in a Book: Smith, R.O. (2002). Assistive technology outcome assessment prototypes: Measuring “INGO” variables of “outcomes.” In R. Simpson (Ed.), Proceedings of the RESNA 25th Annual Conference (pp. 239–341). Minneapolis, MN: RESNA Press.
- Website: Electronic and Mechanical Assistive Technologies. (2002). Ziska environmental control unit. Retrieved December 10, 2003, from http:// www.hsc.mb.ca/re/catalogue/env_remove.htm
Tables and Figures
Additional Author Services
Initial Manuscript Submissions
- Blinded version of the paper: A blinded paper does not include the authors’ names or affiliations. It also does not include acknowledgements that can potentially identify the author. The ScholarOne system will prompt you to tag this version of the paper as “main document” when you upload this document. The blinded version should be one column, double space, 12 point font. It should be submitted in one of the following formats: .doc or .docx. Please do not submit the document in pdf as the production editor cannot edit that version.
- Title page: This page includes the title of the paper and authors names and affiliations and designated author correspondence information. The title page should also include any acknowledgement information. This document will not be seen by reviewers but the information will be inserted later into the paper prior to production proofs being developed. The ScholarOne system will prompt you to tag this document as “title page” when you upload the document.
Revised Manuscript Submissions
- Revision summary: The revision summary is a narrative that describes the changes made to the paper and addressed the reviewers comments. The summary should be blinded, no author names should be included in the summary. The ScholarOne system will prompt you to tag this version of the paper as “revised manuscript revision summary” when you upload this document.
- Blinded version of the revised paper showing changes: The ScholarOne system will prompt you to tag this version of the paper as “revised manuscript showing changes” when you upload this document.
- Unmarked clean version of revised paper: You will also need to submit a clean blinded version of the revised paper, with all the changes incorporated. The ScholarOne system will prompt you to tag this version of the paper as “revised manuscript unmarked” when you upload this document.
- Relevance to the Journal’s Mission: The paper must be relevant to the Aims and Scope as described under Aims and Scope. It need not be stated as such in any section of the manuscript, but will be considered in the overall evaluation.
- Background: An Introduction/Background section should provide the rationale and/or motivating purpose for the research, developed procedures or preliminary techniques. This should include a description of the population need being addressed, other attempts to meet this need that were less than adequate, etc. The background provides the motivation for the developed assistive technology or technical strategy developed and/or advanced, evaluated, etc. If this is a research project, the background should lead to an hypothesis that is then tested/validated by the reported research, and/or research questions that are answered by the results of the research experiment.
- Methods/Materials: In a major section with appropriate title, the methods and materials employed should be described in a manner that rationally follows from the Background. The choice of materials and methods should be tied to the needs to be met as described in the Background. Methods of evaluation and data collection and participant testing, if used, should all be tied to the described issue to be resolved and/or questions to be answered. If this is a technical note, the development methods should be described within the context of the population need and existing technology solutions and/or gaps. If data analysis methods are use, they should be described here. If participants are employed to evaluate a new technical design or strategy, etc., then participant testing protocols should be described here. All these procedures should be described clearly enough that a comparable group of engineers/researchers/clinicians could follow the same methods/materials and find similar results.
- Results: The results section should directly reflect the results of employing the described Methods/Materials. Results should relate directly to an hypothesis, or research questions, or a technique developed, etc.
- Discussion: This section should describe the meaning of the results within the context laid out in the Background. It should describe the benefit to the population in terms of validated new methods, technical progress, etc. The discussion should also put unexpected results or data into context, with possible reasons for why the results were not all as expected. Other things learned should also be discussed in terms of their importance to the field.
- Conclusion: A short Conclusion section should summarize the meaning of the results. This section should also include future directions that may now be taken based on the results of this particular work.