Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

JIME was established in September 1996. Its aims are:

  • To publish leading international research on the theories, practices and experiences in the field of educational technology. 
  • To foster a multidisciplinary and intellectually rigorous debate on the theoretical and practical aspects of digital media in higher education.
  • To clarify the cognitive, social and cultural issues raised by the use of digital media in higher education.
  • To explore and promote open access in education in the age of digital publishing and communication.
  • To radically improve teaching and learning through better interactive media.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Articles should be between 5000 and 8000 words in length. 

See the Author Guidelines for bibliographic and formatting standards, a Submission Preparation checklist and a Copyright notice.

Submissions should have a clear educational focus or application, and should illuminate the special contribution that interactive media can make to learners' knowledge, understanding or skill. Submissions are expected to advance knowledge in the field in some way, by developing theory, or critiquing existing work, or providing an analysis or framework for understanding empirical findings.

Different kinds of submissions will be judged by different criteria. Ideally, we are looking for integrated submissions that present the theoretical basis for a technology, its design process and implementation, its evaluation, and theoretical implications. However, one or more these aspects may form the basis for a submission.

  • Empirical Articles: describe the collection and interpretation of data concerning the design or use of an educational technology artifact. Data might include interviews, observations, surveys or experimental manipulations. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection are welcome. Quantitative analyses should include appropriate statistical tests. Authors should clarify and critique the theoretical basis for the technology being evaluated. Review criteria include the appropriateness and rationale for the methods of data collection and analysis, and the significance of the conclusions for practice or research in educational technologies.
  • Experience Articles: describe the application of principled methods, theory, or tools to the design, development, and/or deployment of an educational technology artifact. Review criteria include the value of the reflections abstracted from the experience and their relevance to other designers, educators, or researchers working in the field.
  • Systems Articles: describe the software and technology associated with a novel application, design, or development tool. Review criteria include the originality, preciseness of description and relevance to other educational technology designers or educators. Authors should be clear as to what extent the system has been implemented and evaluated, and should make explicit the theoretical basis for the technology if this is not the focus of the submission.
  • Literature Reviews and Theoretical Analyses: characterise the literature relating to a particular issue; identify key theoretical issues that need to be resolved; propose ways forward. Review criteria include the conceptual framework (if any) used to characterise and structure the literature review, justification of the importance of a theoretical issue, and potential of the theoretical approach proposed.

Reviewers are asked to comment on the following:

  1. the overall suitability of the paper for the journal;
  2. the clarity of writing, the organisation of the argument (including whether or not the author has drawn on relevant and up-to-date sources), the paper's ability to hold interest;
  3. the relevance to the journal's audience of the materials presented, the appropriateness of the methodology and how the results have been analysed;
  4. the significance and originality of the paper for discussion and debate in its area of research.

 

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Reviews

Reviews of conferences and other resources that focus on the relevance of these resources for the JIME audience.  Reviews should be between 800 - 1500 words in length.

If you are attending a conference/seminar that may be of interest to the JIME community, and you are willing to write a review, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Book and eBook Reviews

Reviews of books and eBooks that focus on the relevance of these resources for the JIME audience.  Reviews should be between 800 - 1500 words in length.

Publishers send us books or eBooks for review and we put the abstracts on the JIME site inviting review. If you wish to review one of these books, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

If you know of a book which may be of interest to the JIME community, and you are willing to write a review, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Editorial

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Perspective

The purpose of the perspectives in JIME is to provide a space for viewpoints and opinions which are not reporting new research but are reflecting on relevant issues in the area of interactive media in education.  Perspective articles may come from employers, educators, practitioners of all kinds or researchers and should be written in an accessible and engaging way.  The tone of a perspectives article should be informative and reflective rather than academic and scholarly.  Arguments should be well made, however, and the audience's knowledge and experience respected. 

Perspectives articles will go through the process of single anonymous review.

Below is a guide for JIME perspectives articles, please regard this as a list of suggestions rather than a template to be followed.  The perspectives article you submit might not cover all the points listed below.  Also, if you have an idea that you think may be suitable for a perspectives article, but would like to discuss how to develop the idea for the JIME audience, please contact us at jime@open.ac.uk

Length: 2000 - 3000 words

Examples of topics that might be discussed include:

  • overview of interactive/digital media in education from a particular country or geographical region
  • reflections on the implications of research already reported elsewhere
  • viewpoints and opinions of individuals who are or have been influential in shaping education and the use of technology in education

Relevance - your audience needs to know what they might learn from reading your perspectives article, why you are writing it and what viewpoint you are representing.

We expect perspectives to be critical, analytical and thought provoking rather than just descriptive.  They may represent optimistic or pessimistic viewpoints.

Impact - your perspectives article should aim to create impact of some kind, offering some directions and recommendations for readers.

Where appropriate you should include some references, if not there should be some recommendations for further reading, these may be links to websites or other digital resources.  They might also be links to practical texts.  They should be there to help your readers explore the issues further themselves.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Online media reviews

Reviews of educational online media resources that focus on the relevance of these resources for the JIME audience.  Reviews should be between 800 - 1500 words in length.

If you know of educational online media which may be of interest to the JIME community, and you are willing to write a review, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Video and audio reviews

Reviews of educational video and audio resources that focus on the relevance of these resources for the JIME audience.  Reviews should be between 800 - 1500 words in length.

Periodically we receive video and audio educational resources for review and we put the abstracts on the JIME site inviting review. If you wish to review one of these resources, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

If you know of educational video and audio resources which may be of interest to the JIME community, and you are willing to write a review, please contact jime@open.ac.uk

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Posters

Posters can be any visual media relevant to JIME which is presented at conferences and seminars to illustrate a concept or research progress.

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer-reviews will be conducted anonymously by two reviewers.

We seek to ensure that the topics covered in the submission relate to the specialist area of at least one of the reviewers.

Reviewers will be asked to consider whether or not the submission is suitable for the JIME audience.  Before submitting their paper authors should consider whether it could be made more understandable to an international and/or non-specialist readership.

We see to provide authors with constructive, developmental reviews that will help them to produce publishable submissions, in future submissions if not the current one.

Reviewers will make one of four recommendations:

  • Accept submission: no revisions are required other than those that would normally be carried out during the copy-editing/proof-reading process.
  • Revisions required: the submission would be acceptable for publication if minor revisions were made as outlined in your reviewers comments.  The editorial team will be responsible for checking that the revisions have been completed satisfactorily.
  • Resubmit for review:  the submission is relevant for the JIME audience and has the potential to be of publishable quality.  It requires major revisions and should be resubmitted for review.
  • Decline submission: the submission is unfortunately not relevant for the JIME audience.

Following publication

The final publication will be freely accessible on the JIME site.

 

Publication Frequency

We aim to publish JIME three times per year.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

 

Reviewer Guidelines

Submissions should have a clear educational focus or application, and should illuminate the special contribution that interactive media can make to learners' knowledge, understanding or skill. Submissions are expected to advance knowledge in the field in some way, by developing theory, or critiquing existing work, or providing an analysis or framework for understanding empirical findings.

Different kinds of submissions will be judged by different criteria. Ideally, we are looking for integrated submissions that present the theoretical basis for a technology, its design process and implementation, its evaluation, and theoretical implications. However, one or more these aspects may form the basis for a submission.

  • Empirical Articles: describe the collection and interpretation of data concerning the design or use of an educational technology artifact. Data might include interviews, observations, surveys or experimental manipulations. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection are welcome. Quantitative analyses should include appropriate statistical tests. Authors should clarify and critique the theoretical basis for the technology being evaluated. Review criteria include the appropriateness and rationale for the methods of data collection and analysis, and the significance of the conclusions for practice or research in educational technologies.
  • Experience Articles: describe the application of principled methods, theory, or tools to the design, development, and/or deployment of an educational technology artifact. Review criteria include the value of the reflections abstracted from the experience and their relevance to other designers, educators, or researchers working in the field.
  • Systems Articles: describe the software and technology associated with a novel application, design, or development tool. Review criteria include the originality, preciseness of description and relevance to other educational technology designers or educators. Authors should be clear as to what extent the system has been implemented and evaluated, and should make explicit the theoretical basis for the technology if this is not the focus of the submission.
  • Literature Reviews and Theoretical Analyses: characterise the literature relating to a particular issue; identify key theoretical issues that need to be resolved; propose ways forward. Review criteria include the conceptual framework (if any) used to characterise and structure the literature review, justification of the importance of a theoretical issue, and potential of the theoretical approach proposed.

JIME Review Process

We usually give reviewers up to 4 weeks in which to read and review a paper.

From a reviewer's perspective, the process is as follows:

Read the submission, and try any interactive demonstrations or websites that the author has provided

Please download the document from this site to read through and make notes. Optionally you may upload a new version of the paper with your comments in then you may do so.

Formulate review comments

You may wish to use your normal word processor from which you can then paste text into the website. We have provided sections both for comments to the author and comments that are just to the Editor. Generally it is best to make most comments so that they can be shared with the author, by repeated "Save" of comments these can be organised into sections.

Organise your comments under JIME's general criteria:

-          Originality of Ideas

-          Clarity of Goals

-          Appropriateness of Methods (where relevant)

-          Clarity & Credibility of Results

-          Quality of Writing

Submit your recommendation to the Editor. There are four possible recommendations:

-          Accept submission: no revisions required other than those that would normally be carried out during the copy-editing/proof-reading process

-          Revisions required: the submission is acceptable for publication if minor revisions are made as outlined in your reviewers’ comments.  The editorial team will be responsible for checking that the revisions have been completed satisfactorily.

-          Resubmit for review: the submission is relevant for the JIME audience and has the potential to be of publishable quality.  It requires major revisions and should be resubmitted for review.  If you tick this option, the editor may ask you whether you are prepared to review the resubmission.

-          Decline submission

Submit your review

Please return to this site to enter your comments by clicking on the comment icon and to upload any additional files. You may leave the site and return, saved comments will be retained and can be editted again if you wish. Once complete please select your recommendation, note if you think that none of the recommendations are suitable then indicate "see comments" and include the recommendation in the comments to the editor. Finally submit the review.

If you cannot use the Web to submit your review, then please send an email version, structured under the relevant headings, to the editor for the submission. However, we strongly encourage reviewers to go through the Web interface, since this relieves the burden on the Editor.

If you have ticked recommendation 1, 2 or 4, your obligations as a reviewer are completed. Thank you.  We very much appreciate your contribution.

 



ISSN: 1365-893X