Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) is the journal of ascilite, the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. It aims to promote research and scholarship on the integration of technology in tertiary education, promote effective practice, and inform policy.

AJET welcomes previously unpublished manuscripts that advance understanding of educational technology in post-school education settings, including higher and further education, lifelong learning, and training.

Please note that following recommendations of a review into the journal's focus we no longer accept manuscripts that focus specifically on school education. We will, however, consider school-related research that has a direct relevance to post-school education, such as transition from school to higher education.

We consider manuscripts that present qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, critical reviews or analyses, and theoretical positions. Descriptions of technology-based implementations without a strong empirical and/or conceptual base will not be considered.

Manuscripts submitted to AJET are expected to be well written, as they will not be edited for English expression while under review.

In addition to clearly presenting the background to the study and the results, authors must:

  • explain the significance of the study and how it advances knowledge in an area relevant to the journal's scope;
  • set their study within the broader research literature (this is especially important when presenting a context-specific study);
  • if based on an empirical study, detail the methodology (including a description and justification of the approach, the research goals, aims or questions, theoretical/conceptual framework, recruitment/sampling, data collection/production, and data analysis);
  • discuss the results and/or theoretical ideas in light of the research focus or aims of the paper and in the context of the literature; and
  • discuss the limitations of the study, implications for policy and practice, and potential future research directions.

Submissions that do not meet these criteria will be returned to authors after an initial editorial review.

 

 

Section Policies

Editorial

Editors
  • Eva Heinrich
  • Michael Henderson
  • Chwee Beng Lee
Unchecked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

AJET has a two stage review process. The first stage is an initial editorial review by one of the lead editors, resulting in either a decision to send for peer review to two members of AJET's review panel, or an editorial rejection. Quantitative papers are also reviewed by an editor or specialist reviewer with statistical expertise prior to being sent out for peer review . The editorial review process normally takes about 4 weeks but can be longer for quantitative papers or during peak periods.

Our review panel comprises researchers and practitioners drawn from the reviewer lists for ASCILITE conferences, from our list of AJET authors, and from ASCILITE membership generally, together with some researchers and practitioners with appropriate experience and expertise invited from other sources. Reviewers selected to review an article are chosen on the basis of their experience, expertise and interests aligned to the focus of the article.

AJET uses a 'double blind' review process. That is, reviewers are not given the names and institutional affiliations of the authors, and authors are not given the names of the reviewers assigned to their article. It is therefore essential that authors remove all identifying information from their papers in the first instance. This includes removing references in the text that would enable reviewers to identify authors e.g references to authors previously published works. Names, instiutional affiliations and references can be added if the paper is accepted for publication.

The article will be reviewed against the following criteria:

  1. Contribution to advancing knowledge of educational technology in tertiary education (post-school education settings, including higher  and further education, lifelong learning, and training)
  2. Quality of critical engagement with relevant literature (literature review and discussion)
  3. Clarity of research and/or development goals
  4. Clarity and justification of appropriate methodology
  5. Quality of empirical data, analysis, presentation and interpretation of results
  6. Inclusion of appropriate implications for further research, theory, practice and/or policy.
  7. Quality of writing (including structure, writing style, clarity of expression) and adherence to AJET formatting and referencing conventions.

If your article is found suitable to be sent out for peer review you would normally expect to be notified of the outcome of the peer review process within about 12 weeks of submission. In the event that a paper is accepted without requiring any changes, acceptance notification may occur at this time. In most cases revisions will be required and in some cases an additional round of peer review is required following revisions.

Notifications of acceptances are in most cases accompanied by advice specifying revisions which may range in character from necessary for publication to optional suggestions for improving the article. In some cases alterations to figures and diagrams may be requested for purposes of facilitating production of a PDF for publication.

 

Publication Frequency

AJET is published 6 times a year. We do not have specific closing dates for submissions, as each issue of AJET is prepared for website mounting when filled with accepted articles.

 

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.

The journal does not charge authors or readers at any time.

 

Editorial Board

Sue Bennett, University of Wollongong, Australia
Chen Chwen Jen, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Malaysia
Grainne Conole, Bath Spa University, United Kingdom
Laura Czerniewicz, University of Cape Town, South Africa
Barney Dalgarno, Charles Sturt University
Robert Fitzgerald, University of Canberra, Australia
Cathy Gunn, University of Auckland, New Zealand
John Hedberg, Macquarie University, Australia
Jan Herrington, Murdoch University, Australia
Gregor Kennedy, Melbourne University, Australia
Paul Kirschner, Open University of the Netherlands
Allison Littlejohn, Open University, United Kingdom
Lori Lockyer, Macquarie University, Australia
Martin Oliver, Institute of Education, University of London, United Kingdom
Thomas Reeves, University of Georgia, USA
Neil Selwyn, Monash University, Australia
Gail Wilson, Southern Cross University, Australia
Allan H.K. Yuen, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong

 

 

Becoming a Reviewer

REVIEWERS/Reviewer criteria

An AJET reviewer will typically

  • Hold a higher degree (PhD, Masters);
  • Be research active in the field of educational technologies and/or related areas;
  • Be experienced with peer review from author and reviewer perspectives.

To provide timely feedback to authors reviewers are normally expected to accept or decline a review request within one week and complete their review within four weeks from acceptance. AJET understands that it will not always be possible to meet these timeframes and exceptions can be negotiated.

REVIEWERS/Applying to become a reviewer

AJET welcomes applications of potential reviewers. Please contact the lead editor team via email to Eva Heinrich (e.heinrich@massey.ac.nz), briefly stating your relevant qualifications and experience (you might want to copy & paste the following):

  1. AJET username (if already registered):
  2. Interest in the mentoring scheme (yes/no):
  3. Degree (most relevant qualifications):
  4. Current position (title, organisation):
  5. Reviewer for journals/conferences (name most relevant, indicate how long or often you have reviewed):
  6. References to research publications (to a maximum of five):

Please add any other information you regard as relevant. The lead editor team will get back to you should further information be required.

REVIEWERS/Mentoring scheme

Academic publishing relies on strong reviewers who provide well-founded and constructive feedback in a kind professional tone. The mentoring scheme is for new reviewers who are close to fulfilling AJET’s reviewer criteria but require more experience. A reviewer signed up under the mentoring scheme will be added to the standard reviewer panel. The editorial team will provide feedback on their review to the mentee and will decide if their review is of sufficient quality to be considered in the decision-making and returned to authors. AJET’s double-blind review criteria will be observed.

The editorial team will decide if and when a mentee qualifies as full AJET reviewer.