|
IIER Editorial 36(1): (i) Revisiting a bolder approach to publishing academic research; (ii) Editorial miscellanea
Roger Atkinson and Clare McBeath
IIER Co-Editors, Australia
Our current template for review advice to unsuccessful authors contains the regret "... that IIER may be facing an extended period of acceptance rates declining further below the 8.9% currently estimated for 2025", and the sentences:
After undertaking an end of year 2025 overview, we know that submissions already in our review queue from 2025 have filled both 36(1) (publication due 23 March 2026), and 36(2) (publication due June 2026). IIER 36(3) due end September is now filling.Whilst these circumstances could be endured in the short term, longer term endurance of such delays and such low chances of acceptance are not fair and reasonable. Over the years, numerous IIER Editorials have reported upon these issues [4], with several containing specific suggestions about new journals, including the "IIER-XXX dream" Editorial [5] and the "bolder approach" Editorial [1].
As invited guest editorialists for IIER 36(1), Associate Professor Marg Rogers, Professor Margaret Sims and Professor Einar B. Thorsteinsson have offered highly valuable insights into contemporary academic publishing, characterised very pointedly as "the academic pressure cooker" [6]. Whilst noting that "... idea might be to replicate the IIER model of a 'generalist' educational journal [with its key features]...", they also pointed out that "How this might be staffed sustainably is yet to be imagined...". Our "revisiting" in Editorial 36(1) is in part a renewal of that "imagining", and in part a refining from publishing academic research in Australia to publishing academic research. Pursuing these dual purposes, this Editorial discusses the commissioning of special issues of IIER as a potential practical step towards the eventual emergence of one or several new journals.
What are the potential specifications for such a special issue or issues of IIER?
| i. | Requires a guest editor and associate editors, a guest editorial board and guest reviewers who can undertake all or almost all of the work. This is specified to tightly constrain the amount of work required from IIER's current editorial staff, who since about 2021 have been characterising the IIER workload using the colloquial term "maxed out" [7]. |
| ii. | Requires close matching with IIER's key features: "a 'generalist' educational journal, fully international, open access, with no article processing charges, and high-quality editorial support." [6, Rogers et al., 2026)], or, as stated in Editorial 35(3), "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!)" [8]. |
| iii. | For an initial trial period, we may specify personnel located in Southeast Asian countries and Australian universities with Southeast Asian branch campuses. This reflects Southeast Asian strengths in rising numbers of good quality submissions, and a recognition of 'global south' issues in contemporary academic research journals [9, Groenewald, & Teise, 2024]. Also for an initial trial period, we can experiment with some flexibility in educational research field or topics, in the mix of country sources, judgements about whether an article presents a significant issue, and the numbers of accepted articles. After all, a special issue is often "themed" and often presents a "differentiation" or a "specialisation" within a journal's usual range. |
| iv. | A special issue may be open to authors from anywhere in the world, although a good number of acceptances should be available for consideration of referrals from IIER's editorial staff. |
Perhaps, but it is very important to promote the accompanying purposes, including helping others to expand the world's academic publishing capacity and vision in educational research, especially those "others" in the 'global south', or whose 'voices' [11] are unheard, or who are being denied 'DEI' [12], or who owing to their country's circumstances, need well-proven, very economical publication models.
As publication day is upon us, further formal reporting in IIER Editorials about this 'work in progress' will be in IIER Editorial 36(2)!
There may have been a few hundred "instances" during my Reference list copy edits for IIER 36(1) (allocating time to a precise quantitative study was not possible, there being other kinds of "instances" demanding attention, as disccussed elsewhere). Every "instance" has concluded, correctly, that RA is "not a bot". 100% correct answers. Verified "you are human". Even more reassuring, not a "malicious bot". However, never giving me the 'joy' emoticon that often I feel that I have earned. For a definition of "malicious bot", we recommend using Google's search AI, which is very good at finding references [13], and less likely to tempt the user into relying upon the 'composing' capabilities of ChatGPT.
Whilst it is interesting, though perhaps a little bemusing for many readers, for academic journal publishing industry workers to look into "Verifies you are not a bot", the main purpose here to introduce another Miscellanea discussion (below), which is much more serious, being about IIER's practice of verifying every Reference list citation. An important new reason for this long-standing practice has emerged.
New reasons for IIER's practice of verifying every Reference list citation
Our predilection for appending web addresses to citations began nearly 20 years ago with IIER volume 17 in 2007. In those early days of migration from "paper only", the main purposes were to help grow the popularity of appending web addresses, and to help publicise the pioneering by early adopters of online publication. With the emergence of Google, active searching for web addresses during copy editing, if not cited by authors or publishers, became added to the main purposes. We felt that IIER editors had an obligation to use the new style search engines, to help authors grow their new style, computer-based citation counts, help readers more readily expand their reading of research articles, and help grow the emerging movement towards open access publishing. Therefore the practice of "verifying every citation" became firmly established.
However, the emergence of Google and other search engines also created a darker kind of necessity, namely minimising the risk of Google recording and perpetuating errors in the words made in a citation (errors in case and punctuation are not consequential here). Too many such errors can give a journal reputational damage. Of course, this risk is effectively avoided if a diligent copy editor reaches a "cannot verify" verdict and does something about it. But 'doing something about it' is 'gobbling time' at an increasing rate, and the time problem for editorial staff is escalating again, as outlined in the next few paragraphs.
In May 2024 whilst copy editing a references list for a forthcoming article I (RA) encountered a very unusually large number of citations that could not be verified. Sufficiently unusual to warrant recording a "Copy editing note" (such notes are often appended with highlighting at the end of an article file and are sent to the authors at proofreading time). Using much excerpting from a three page set of Notes (to preserve anonymity), my key conclusion and future action notes were:
... raises a suspicion that GPT 4.0 is "composing" or even "inventing" a reference and is unable to take an essential final step, namely "verify". Broadly, we are not concerned about IIER authors using ChatGPT (see http://www.iier.org.au/iier33/editorial33-1.html - "... IIER urges authors to use all scholarly research avenues and tools to improve their submissions". However, we would be very concerned about "overreach" in AI [artificial intelligence] use. Although time is very limited, I did a little experimenting with exercises in giving Google a search nominating a good number of keywords from your article. Yes, that does produce important and valuable potential references. We use that procedure frequently in composing editorial rejects (see http://www.iier.org.au/iier33/editorial33-1.html), in cases where poor currency of the literature review is a rejection factor. Usually a phrase such as "you could scan the first few hundred" is included.With hindsight, it seems very surprising or very lucky that IIER did not observe any similar, potentially AI-related problems again, until the January-March 2026 period of copy editing for IIER 36(1), when we found 4 of 20 articles aroused concern. The following was excerpted from Copy editing notes for one of these [date not to be revealed]:
2. Reference does not exist, was deleted: [citation not being revealed] The title of the article actually belongs to [author name not being revealed]. In recent times we have found that this kind of 'muddling and mixing' of author(s) name, date, title, journal name, volume, issue seems to be related to ChatGPT being 'asked' to 'compose' a reference after being given a few key words. We caution very strongly about what seems to be using AI to compose references. There is not necessarily anything untoward with using AI to help compose references. The real problem, which we view very much more seriously, is failure to verify such a reference [i.e. check author(s) name, date, title, journal name, volume, issue using Google or other search engine]. It is time consuming and tedious for our copy editing process to check that failure of verification is not a simple error in one or more of "author(s) name, date, title, journal name, volume, issue". Although it adds to the "time consuming and tedious" problem, we have commenced a systematic recording of instances of genAI errors in IIER accepted articles. Some further information will be offered in IIER Editorial 36(1) (anonymity of author perpetrators will not be compromised, although 'victim authors' such as [author name not being revealed] may be named).IIER's policies and procedures for dealing with inappropriate use of AI in composing a submission are still very much a work in progress, as may be inferred from the previous quotations from Copy editing notes. By their unusual length and 'think aloud' nature the Notes excerpts indicate the high level and serious nature of our concern. Though a 'work in progress', we can foreshadow the emergence of three trends.
Firstly, we will endeavour to increase markedly the 'spot checking' of Reference lists at the initial submission stage. Such 'spot checking' will focus especially on citations that do not have a web address appended, although our experience indicates that normally a web address would be available for appending. This is based on our experience to date that indicates Reference lists as good 'detection points' for potentially inappropriate use of AI tools. Thus, we will be moving towards failure of reference verification as a much more influential 'trigger' for an Editorial rejection, though not necessarily a sufficient 'trigger' or a sole 'trigger' for such rejection.
Secondly, we will have to undertake much increased reading of research literature and publisher literature pertaining to inappropriate use of AI tools in research article writing. An initial foray has suggested in a very preliminary way that concerns are arising in a wide and diverse range of fields, some novel descriptors are appearing, and there is much scope for collection of relevant data. To illustrate novel descriptors, I noted "... often called "hallucinations" ... [14]; "... artificial intelligence hallucination" [15]; and "... fabrication of references ... AI-fake references... [16].
Thirdly, having become aware of some research gaps in this topic, Relevant data collection is already in progress, as illustrated by the previous quotations from Copy editing notes, and hopefully will remain in progress, though the identities of individual instances will remain confidential.
Fourth anniversary of the passing of iMac W80022SZ5PC
Coincidentally, the date of publication for IIER 36(1), 23 March, is the fourth anniversary of the passing of Apple iMac W80022SZ5PC. In Editorial 32(2) I (RA) recorded a high appreciation, "For twelve years you worked your guts out for IIER, along with many other activities." Vale iMac W80022SZ5PC! [3]
IIER authors in war zones
This issue of IIER contains articles from three "war zone countries". These are:
Having received no updates since their returns of proofreading copies some week ago, we can only hope that our emailing of publication advice late on 23 March does not return any fateful feedback.
| Authors: Dr Roger Atkinson and Dr Clare McBeath are two of IIER's current Co-editors.
Please cite as: Atkinson, R. & McBeath, C. (2026). IIER Editorial 36(1): (i) Publishing academic research in Australia: A bolder approach; (ii) Editorial miscellanea. Issues in Educational Research, 36(1), ii-viii. http://www.iier.org.au/iier36/editorial36-1.pdf |