(prior to 2004, Australian Journal of Educational Technology). â». Historically a broad educational technology focus with articles addressing issues in higher ...
BECOMING AN AJET AUTHOR OR REVIEWER
http://bit.ly/2p2dNH
The editorial team ∗
∗
Lead Editors ∗
Associate Professor Michael Henderson, Monash University @mjhenderson
∗
Associate Professor Eva Heinrich, Massey University
∗
Dr Chwee Beng Lee, University of Western Sydney
Associate Editors ∗
Dr Shirley Agostinho, University of Wollongong
∗
Dr Thom Cochrane, Auckland University of Technology @thomcochrane
∗
Dr Helen Farley, University of Southern Queensland @Helssi
∗
Dr Paul Andrew Gruba, University of Melbourne
∗
Dr Jason M Lodge, University of Melbourne
∗
Dr Lina Markauskaite, University of Sydney
∗
Dr Stephen Marshall, Victoria University of Wellington @stephenm_nz
∗
Dr Petrea Redmond, University of Southern Queensland
http://ajet.org.au
Google Scholar Metrics
http://researchgate.net
SCOPUS
Web Of Science
About AJET ◻
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (prior to 2004, Australian Journal of Educational Technology).
◻
Historically a broad educational technology focus with articles addressing issues in higher education, vocational and school sectors (since 2013 sole focus on post secondary)
◻
Open access, online only, since Volume 24, 2008
◻
Since 2013, 6 issues per year
◻
Indexed in Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, …
◻
Online journal information and management at https://ajet.org.au
Our vision for AJET ◻
◻
◻
Focus on Quality ⬜
Theoretically grounded
⬜
Methodologically sound
Make strong contributions ⬜
To educational technology practice
⬜
To theory
Provide variety ⬜
Addressing a wide range of topics in technology supported learning and teaching in tertiary settings
Our editorial process 1.
Submission
2.
Editorial screening by Lead Editor
3.
Assignment to Associate Editor
4.
Statistical review (if needed)
5.
Selection of reviewers
6.
Double-blind review by two reviewers
7.
Decision by Associate Editor (outcomes – decline, resubmit for review, revisions required, accept)
8.
Copy editing
9.
Layout editing
10.
Publication
Peer review criteria 1.
Contribution to advancing knowledge of educational technology in post-secondary education
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.
Call for papers – 2017/8 special issues ◻
Future directions in TPCK/TPACK research and development ⬜
◻
Augmenting learner-generated contexts via mobile augmented reality and mobile virtual reality ⬜
◻
Submission deadline: 12 December 2016
Submission deadline: 15 February 2017
Learning design research: Mapping the terrain ⬜
Submission deadline: 15 April 2017
Reviewing for AJET ◻
◻
Reviewers are an essential part of AJET ⬜
For guarding the quality of articles published
⬜
For assisting members of our research community to develop
Reviewers gain benefits ⬜
In their own development
⬜
By making ‘countable’ research contributions
Becoming a reviewer for AJET ◻
◻
Contact one of the lead editors ⬜
Informal process
⬜
Provide information on your background
New scheme ⬜
For researchers new to reviewing, assistance from the editorial team
⬜
Assigned as additional reviewer for several articles
Insights from the editorial team Provokes thoughtful engagement and reflection
Pushes theoretical boundaries instead of rehashing ideas
Findings can be transferred to similar contexts
A contribution to existing knowledge
A thorough discussion and conclusion
A clear proposition, well defined problem, compelling issue
A strong paper … Uses statistical methods that match data A research design that grounds the analysis and matches the research questions
Data provide depth of evidence
Insights from the editorial team Is honest, professional and kind
Summarizes the reviewer’s overall perception of the paper
Provides clear guidance to the editor for their decision
Outlines strengths and/or weaknesses in detail
A good review … Contains several paragraphs of comments
Contains clear advice on revisions required
Highlights specific examples of points needing attention
Is well informed by AJETs vision
