Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

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. Submissions considered suitable for review will be assessed for clarity, sound methodology/data analysis and validity of conclusions.

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.

Data Policy

The journal strongly encourages authors to make all data associated with their submission openly available, according to the FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable). This should be linked to from a Data Accessibility Statement within the submitted paper, which will be made public upon publication. If data is not being made available within the journal publication, a statement from the author should be provided to explain why. Data obtained from other sources must be appropriately credited. When depositing data for a submission, the below should be considered:

  • The repository the data is deposited in must be suitable for this subject and have a sustainability model.
  • The data must be deposited under an open license that permits unrestricted access (e.g. CC0, CC-BY). More restrictive licenses should only be used if a valid reason (e.g. legal) is present.
  • The deposited data must include a version that is in an open, non-proprietary format.
  • The deposited data must have been labelled in such a way that a 3rd party can make sense of it (e.g. sensible column headers, descriptions in a readme text file). 
  • Research involving human subjects, human material, or human data, must have been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Where applicable, the studies must have been approved by an appropriate ethics committee. The identity of the research subject should be anonymised whenever possible. For research involving human subjects, informed consent to participate in the study must be obtained from participants (or their legal guardian). 
  • A ‘Data Accessibility Statement’ should be added to the submission, prior to the reference list, providing the details of the data accessibility, including the DOI linking to it. If the data is restricted in any way, the reasoning should be given. 

A list of data repositories is available at http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/Data_repositories.

Preprint Policy

The journal allows authors to deposit draft versions of their paper into a suitable preprint server, on condition that the author agrees to the below:

  • The author retains copyright to the preprint and developed works from it, and is permitted to submit it to the journal.
  • The author declares that a preprint is available within the cover letter presented during submission. This must include a link to the location of the preprint.
  • The author acknowledges that having a preprint publicly available means that the journal cannot guarantee the anonymity of the author during the review process, even if they anonymise the submitted files (see review policy).
  • Should the submission be published, the authors are expected to update the information associated with the preprint version to show that a final version has been published in the journal, including the DOI linking directly to the publication.

ORCID

The journal strongly recommends that all authors submitting a paper register an account with Open Researcher and Contributor Identifier (ORCID). Registration provides a unique and persistent digital identifier for the account that enables accurate attribution and improves the discoverability of published papers, ensuring that the correct author receives the correct credit for their work. As the ORCID remains the same throughout the lifetime of the account, changes of name, affiliation, or research area do not effect the discoverability of an author's past work and aid correspondence with colleagues.

The journal encourages all corresponding authors to include an ORCID within their submitting author data whilst co-authors are recommended to include one. ORCID numbers should be added to the author data upon submission and will be published alongside the submitted paper, should it be accepted.

Competing Interests, Funding and Ethics 

To ensure transparency, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication. Competing interests guidelines can be viewed here.

In addition, authors are required to specify funding sources and detail requirements for ethical research in the submitted manuscript (see Author Guidelines). All authors must confirm that they fit the definition of an author (see Authorship Guidelines), during submission.

Corrections and Retractions

The Press handles different kinds of error in accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable. All articles have their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact the editorial manager if you believe an article needs correcting.

Post-publication changes are not permitted to the publication, unless in exceptional circumstances. If an error is discovered in a published article then the publisher will assess whether a Correction paper or Retraction is required. This ensures that the error can be appropriately corrected, whilst the integrity of the publication record is not broken. Please contact the publisher for the full Correction/Retraction policy.

Misconduct and Complaints

Allegations of misconduct will be taken with utmost seriousness, regardless of whether those involved are internal or external to the journal, or whether the submission in question is pre- or post-publication. All reasonable steps will be taken to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication. If an allegation of misconduct is made to the journal, it must be immediately passed on to the publisher, who will follow guidelines from the Committee  on Publication Ethics (COPE) on how to address the nature of the problem. Should the matter involve allegations against a member of the journal or publishing team, an independent and objective individual(s) may be sought to lead the investigation.

Should an author wish to lodge a complaint against an editorial decision or the editorial process in general they should first approach the Editor-in-Chief of the journal, explaining their complaint and ask for a reasoned response. Should this not be forthcoming or inadequate, they should raise the matter with the publisher, who will investigate the nature of the complaint and act as arbiter on whether the complaint should be upheld and investigated further. This will follow guidelines set out by COPE.

Section Policies

Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book and eBook Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Perspective

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Online media reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Video and audio reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Posters

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

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.

Quick links