|
IIER Editorial 35(4): (i) Publishing academic research in Australia: A bolder approach; (ii) Editorial miscellanea
Roger Atkinson and Clare McBeath
IIER Co-Editors, Australia
... the absence of an article publishing charge (APC), open access publishing, valuable formative advice, highly supportive copy editing, IIER's perceived high status (Scopus Q2), IIER's 'generalist' character, and the encouragement derived from finding that colleagues or fellow nationals have succeeded with their IIER submissions (IIER could be equally-well open to me/us!) (Editorial 35(3) [1])The problematic features, also often identified in editorials and our communications to readers, include (for example):
We regret that due to the emergence of a backlog in IIER's review process, we have temporarily suspended our providing of the formative advice from IIER editorial staff that usually accompanies IIER's "initial assessment" advice. The backlog is due to continuing high rates of submission ... (Editorial 35(3) [1])As a further illustration, our current forward estimate of the number of submissions to IIER in 2025 is 895. That will represent an increase of about 10.5% over the number for 2024, namely 810. Whilst very many enterprises would welcome 'double-digit' annual growth in their activities, that is not the case with IIER. This is because one of IIER's longer range aspirations is demonstrating a publishing model that succeeds in the small scale, ultra-economical, no charges sector of the academic publishing industry. It is a model that deserves further elaboration in future IIER editorials and elsewhere, but we could predict confidently that 'double-digit' annual growth is incompatible. To borrow a term used in other discourses, we will avoid the risks arising from "mission creep" (Google it).
IIER and very many other journals have to continue adapting to the twin pressures of increasing disappointments for authors, and increasingly difficult workload experiences for editorial staff and reviewers. Although we often revisit the broad suite of actions outlined in IIER Editorial 30(2), four years ago, renewed energy will be needed on implementations. (Editorial 34(2) [2]; Editorial 30(2) [3])
However, attention to these "key features" and "problematic features" as recounted above for IIER, a relatively very small journal publisher (about 80-84 articles per year), must not divert attention from several vitally important "bigger picture" features. These are IIER as a contributor (albeit very modest) to:
| - | furthering English as the global language or lingua franca (ELF) |
| - | researchers supporting efforts, or potential efforts, to do more for international education in English, in Australia and diverse other countries |
| - | creating a very large scale community of practice constituted by the world's educational researchers |
Whilst IIER sees little scope for growing beyond the "very modest" category, we are hopeful and cautiously optimistic that eventually we will get some progress with the current circumstances:
IIER is at present "maxed out", but the international academic publishing industry is not, to date, delivering what we would really like to see. This is a good number of emulators of IIER, featuring open access; no article publishing charge ("APC"); high quality mentoring and copy editing support; a commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion; able to sustain high standards in academic merit; and having strong local or regional societal connections that can help to counter existing "global power imbalances" (Panda, 2022) in academic publishing. (Editorial 32(2) [4]; Panda, 2022 [5]; see also Groenewald & Teise, 2024 [6])In the same cautiously optimistic manner, IIER editorials have sometimes advanced ideas for progressing the small scale, ultra-economical, no charges sector of the academic publishing industry, for example:
... an opportunity for the new Australian Government to fund an economical editorial and publishing support service, as a soft diplomacy initiative directed towards Pacific and South-east Asian countries. Delivery could be via the National Library, or consortia of Australian university libraries or university presses. The key features could be, open access, conducted by your community and in English or bilingual. (Editorial 32(2) [4]; see also Groenewald & Teise, 2024 [6]).Finally, returning to some reasons for using the phrase "bolder approach" in the heading for the lead section of this editorial. The hostile attitude of the current U.S. Government towards international students could embolden our current Australian Government to grasp an opportunity this creates to go in an opposite direction. Australia should welcome any increases in international student admissions to Australian universities, TAFE institutions and schools. In the interests of transparency, IIER should declare we are a potential beneficiary (though only as a very small player). A good number of IIER's authors developed their research skills during postgraduate enrolment at an Australian university, and these graduates often stand out in IIER's review and publishing processes. A few of our authors are casual academic staff facing dismissal, owing to decreases in international student numbers at Australian universities.
Late one recent night, ... An idea popped up, about promoting the emergence of 'sibling journals', such as 'Issues in Educational Research Southeast Asia (IIER Southeast Asia)', or 'IIER Indonesia', 'IIER Philippines', 'IIER Pasifica', 'IIER Africa'. Many variations and implications for this kind of name floated up in my mind, so I'll use IIER-XXX as a convenience label. New journals "that emulate, or nearly emulate, IIER's important features that attract authors" [1, p.iii]. New journals that could be catalysed by sharing in the large flow of submissions that is overwhelming IIER. ...
... Unfortunately, at about that point in dreaming over a way forward, I woke up. In a 'reality check' sweat, ... (Editorial 35(1) [7]
For another perspective on a "bolder approach", we can look for insights from the copy editing of references lists. This topic is still very much in mind from the recent completion of copy editing for IIER 35(4), which contains 1124 citations in 21 articles. Occasionally, whilst checking these citations at a rate something like 25 to 30 per hour, I would pause a little over a journal title that was originally wholly Australian based, but now has operations "partnered" or "outsourced" or "published" by a multinational company. Examples found included Australian Journal of Education (editorial operations outsourced to Sage), The Australian Educational Researcher (editorial operations outsourced to Springer), Higher Education Research & Development, and Distance Education (both with Taylor & Francis) [8]. The thought for which I paused when encountering these journals concerned their non-adoption of a "bolder approach", based upon a newly emerging trend. Whilst this trend has been described by very many authors, we can take a succinct characterisation from the guest editorial for this issue:
Over the past two decades, thanks to advances in technology, there has been a transition from paper-based scholarship toward an increasingly digital, open-access, and globally networked ecosystem in the field. The widespread adoption of online journals, digital repositories, and collaborative authoring platforms has altered both what we research and how research is conceptualised, conducted, and disseminated. (Soodmand Afshar & Ranjbar, 2025, p.viii [9]).The journals named above adopted a slow "transition from paper-based scholarship". Along with very many other journals, they retained their printed versions, enabled by their engagement with a multinational publisher As all four are fine examples of successful journals that have attained good reputations, along with good earning of income for both the publisher and the originating society or organisation. Therefore, why should we bother with discussing a "bolder approach", which would have been an immediate "transition from paper-based scholarship" coupled with an early start towards open access? Perhaps three main reasons may be suggested:
| - | abandoning print offered a substantial saving, avoiding a requirement to turn to a multinational publisher to fund continuation of "paper based" |
| - | being an "innovator" or early adopter on the open access path was probably better than being a "laggard" (after Rogers, 1983 [10]) |
| - | some good examples of an immediate "transition from paper-based scholarship" towards "digital, open-access, and globally networked" became available. Not surprisingly, we nominate IIER [11] and Australasian Journal of Educational Technology [12] (unfortunately, the 35(4) publication deadline is nigh, so exploring this topic for contributions made in other countries has to be deferred or taken up by others). |
Dear Editor of Issues in Educational Research,We were prompted to provide an explanation, although we continue to avoid supplying a "template". We thanked XXX for the interest in IIER, and provided the text quoted below, supplemented by citation of two IIER editorials [13, 14] that in this particular case were relevant.
... Can you send me your journal template?
