Sexual Abuse

Instructions to Authors

Submission Guidelines

SA uses an online submission and review platform. Manuscripts should be submitted electronically to http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sajrt. Authors will be required to set up an online account on the SAGE Track system powered by ScholarOne. From their account, a new submission can be initiated. Authors will be asked to provide the required information (author names and contact information, abstract, keywords, etc.), complete submission checklist, and to upload the "title page" and "main document" separately to ensure that the manuscript is ready for blind review. Supplemental materials (e.g., additional tables, figures) can also be uploaded, when applicable, and will need to be prepared for blind review. The site contains links to an online user's guide (Get Help Now [add web link]) for help navigating the site.

Manuscripts are subjected to blind peer review and require the author’s name(s) and affiliation listed on a separate page. Any other identifiable information, including any references in the manuscript, the notes, the title, supplemental materials, and reference sections, should be removed from the paper and listed on separate pages.

Manuscripts should be prepared according to the guidelines set forth in the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). This includes stipulations regarding page layout, manuscript sections and headings, and formatting of references, tables, and figures. DOI numbers when available for listed references are to be included. Effect sizes and confidence intervals are reported, where appropriate.

Each submission should also include an abstract between 100 and 150 words and 4-5 keywords.

Authors should also ensure appropriate statements have been included in the submission and the Submission Checklist completed.

Submission of a manuscript implies a commitment by the author to publish in the journal. If the manuscript is accepted, the editors assume that any manuscript submitted to SA is not currently under consideration by any other journal.

If you are interested in open access, click here. The standard article processing charge for SAGE Choice is 3,000 USD/1,600 GBP. The fee excludes any other potential author fees levied by some journals (such as color charges) as well as taxes where applicable.

Author Statements

SA strives for objectivity and transparency in research. As such, we request authors to disclose information relevant for the Editors, reviewers, and readers of this journal.

Statement 1: Statistical Significance Statement

Authors should provide information on their study design and analysis that can increase the risk of spurious significant findings (colloquially referred to as p-hacking):

1. In the Acknowledgement section, empirical manuscripts should include the statement, "The authors takes responsibility for the integrity of the data, the accuracy of the data analyses, and have made every effort to avoid inflating statistically significant results."
2. In the Method section, empirical manuscripts may consider including the statement, “We report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study”, from the 21 Word Solution (Simmons, Nelson, & Simonsohn, 2012). Authors may also include, if appropriate, the following elements in the Method section:
3. 1. Report how sample size was determined and what rule was used to stop data collection;
   2. Report the total number of any excluded cases or observations, and the reasons for making these exclusions;
   3. Report all dependent variables that were analyzed for the research question(s), whether reaching statistically significant thresholds or not;
   4. If applicable, report all relevant manipulations or conditions, whether successful or not;
   5. Specify whether analyses were prespecified prior to data collection- in order to address the specific research question- or exploratory- implemented after examination of the data and/or prespecified analyses (see Head et al. [2015], for further information);
   6. Cite prior publication of some or all of the data reported in the manuscript, to assist in future meta-analysis.

These guidelines are intended to be aspirational, to encourage greater transparency and reproducibility. Submissions that cannot address all these points will still be considered and accepted for publication in SA.

We recognize that these guidelines are more easily implemented for manuscripts reporting experimental designs, but may not be suitable for other types of studies that are commonly submitted to SA. For example, it is common in our field for a study to use data from a large database that have led to multiple publications using some or all of the data. Citing all prior publications (Element f) would be excessive in length, and might not be possible if the authors are not aware of all the published work that has used this database. In this particular example, we suggest that the authors clearly describe the database and cite prominent studies using the database, so that the readers understand where these data come from. Large databases may also have many measures, not all of which would have been analyzed for the purpose of the submitted study. In such cases, reporting all the measures would again be excessively long. Instead, the authors are asked to report all variables that were examined for the research questions (Element a).

Qualitative study designs are another submission that do not easily fit these elements and where the 21 Word Solution might not be appropriate. For qualitative studies, Element a (reporting how sample size was determined), Element b (reporting any included cases), and Element f (citing prior publications that use some or all of the data) are usually applicable.

The 21 Word Solution would also not be applicable to meta-analyses, but much of the elements (i.e., Element B, C, E, and F) are pertinent. Finally, review or theoretical submissions that do not present any statistical analyses would not require these statements.

Statement 2: Role of Funding Sources
Authors must identify any financial support received to conduct the research and/or preparation of the manuscript. Authors should specify if the funding source had any involvement in the research and/or preparation of the manuscript. The absence or presence of funding does not preclude eligibility for publication in the journal.

Statement 3: Disclosure of Financial Interests
All authors must disclose any financial interests, such as a financial stake in a measure or service described in the manuscript, or a close, current personal relationship with someone (e.g., partner/spouse, family member) who has a financial stake in a measure or service that is described. A financial interest does not preclude eligibility for publication in the journal.

Statement 4: Research ethics approval
Authors must include a statement in the Methods section regarding institutional research ethics review and approval, if applicable. If not applicable, a short rationale should be provided (e.g., not applicable or not required).

Open Science Badging

Sexual Abuse encourages open science practices, which includes preregistration of studies, providing open study materials, or providing study data in a public repository. To qualify, preregistration, open materials, and open data should be on a publicly accessible website in a format that is time-stamped, immutable, and permanent.

To recognize these practices, we are introducing Open Science Framework (OSF) badging to articles published in this journal. For more information about these badges, see the OSF Wiki. Badging is not required for submission, peer review, or publication.

Preregistration badges are currently for Registered Reports only. Authors are asked to be mindful of ethical issues, copyright, and feasibility when considering the sharing of materials or data.

If you wish to apply for OSF badging, please ensure you mention this in your cover letter, complete our disclosure form and include it with your submission.

Authors are encouraged to be thoughtful about the connotations of language used in their manuscripts to describe persons or groups. Person-first language (e.g., “persons with sexual offense histories”, “individual who has been adjudicated for…”, “child/adolescent with sexual behavior problems”) is generally preferred because it is often more accurate and less pejorative than terms like “sex offender”. Terms like “sex offender” imply an ongoing tendency to commit sex offenses, which is inaccurate
for many persons who have been convicted for sex offenses given current sexual recidivism base rates. Similarly, the term suggests a homogeneous group defined and stigmatized on the basis of criminal behaviors that may have taken place infrequently
or many years in the past. Person-first language is also consistent with APA style guidelines for reducing bias in written language (see American Psychological Association). Authors will sometimes need to refer to current legal terms such as "Sexually Violent Predator" laws in the US; in such cases the legal term can be placed in italics or in quotation marks. Additional guidance on this recommendation can be found in the 7th edition of the APA Publication Manual, Willis (2018), and Willis and Letourneau (2018).