|
IIER Editorial 36(2): (i) IIER's 2026 review outcomes; (ii) Miscellanea
Roger Atkinson and Clare McBeath
IIER Co-Editors, Australia
This Editorial provides IIER's eleventh annual presentation of the details of article review outcomes, now covering the years, 2015 to 2025.
| Year of receipt | No. rec'd | No. rejected editorially (a) | No. reject ext review (b) | No. with- drawn (c) | No. accept (d) | No. publ- ished (e) | % accep- ted (f) | Date fin- alised (g) |
| 2025 | 919 | 831 (90.5%) | 3 (0.3%) | 5 (0.5%) | 80 | 84 | 8.7% | 09/04/26 |
| 2024 | 810 | 697 (86.0%) | 19 (2.3%) | 4 (0.6%) | 90 | 84 | 11.1% | 20/04/25 |
| 2023 | 827 | 697 (84.3%) | 40 (4.8%) | 6 (0.7%) | 84 | 83 | 10.2% | 18/04/24 |
| 2022 | 645 | 525 (81.4%) | 43 (6.7%) | 6 (0.9%) | 71 | 82 | 11.0% | 17/04/23 |
| 2021 | 662 | 531 (80.2%) | 39 (5.9%) | 6 (0.9%) | 86 | 73 | 13.0% | 30/05/22 |
| 2020 | 670 | 556 (83.0%) | 40 (6.0%) | 2 (0.3%) | 72 | 80 | 10.7% | 13/04/21 |
| 2019 | 475 | 365 (76.8%) | 48 (10.1%) | 7 (1.5%) | 55 | 71 | 11.6% | 03/04/20 |
| 2018 | 469 | 349 (74.4%) | 44 (9.4%) | 6 (1.3%) | 70 | 60 | 14.9% | 20/05/19 |
| 2017 | 306 | 205 (67.0%) | 33 (10.8%) | 3 (1.0%) | 65 | 50 | 21.2% | 24/04/18 |
| 2016 | 196 | 116 (59.2%) | 28 (14.3%) | 5 (2.5%) | 47 | 40 | 24.0% | 17/04/17 |
| 2015 | 124 | 75 (60.5%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 43 | 31 | 34.7% | 22/04/16 |
| ||||||||
Comparing the rows for 2024 and 2025, whilst number published has 'flatlined', we may discern an increased pace of change in numbers received (increasing), percentage rejected editorially (increasing), percentage rejected after external review (decreasing sharply), and percentage accepted (decreasing sharply). Each of these matters is a long story; 'long' because IIER is now in its 36th year and the factors underlying the recent 'accelerations' emerged decades ago. So the following paragraphs attempt to provide a succinct characterisation of these factors, and outline some of the steps IIER may take to tighten our rationing of access to publishing in IIER.
Number published has 'flatlined'
The main reason for IIER flatlining at about 21 articles per issue and four issues per year is that in recent years, resources have been directed more intensively towards advice to authors of selected articles, and to supporting individual article improvement by copy editing activities. However, there is also an important underlying reason for containing the numbers published. This is sustaining a hope that IIER offers an attractive model for the operation of a small scale academic journal, that can be feasible for smaller associations or departments, especially in the smaller, newly emerging countries of the 'global south' (Groenewald & Teise, 2024) [a]. Growing 'larger', becoming 'more prestigious', becoming more narrowly focused than our current 'generalist' stance, competing intensely with the big multinationals in academic journal publishing - these and related perspectives that point towards increasing the number published, are unlikely to emerge. Continuing to base IIER on a relatively small scale, compact group of editorial staff conducting operations under 'microbudget' conditions seems likely to remain appropriate, when seeking to project the most readily 'emulated' model.
We appreciate the observation by Cheema and Pervez, 36(2)'s invited guest editorial writers, that various factors have enabled more academics than ever before to participate in applied research:
While this growth represents a positive development for the global education research community, at the same time it has placed significant pressure on journal editors and their teams. Faced with an ever-increasing number of submissions and constrained by a limited reviewing capacity, journals typically respond by becoming more selective (Cheema & Pervez, 2026).However, this 'flatlining' of number published has consequences, as outlined below.
Numbers received increasing
One of our current templates for advice to aspiring authors expands this point, by using this summary sentence: "During 2025 IIER averaged 76.6 submissions per month, with an increase to 99.6 submissions per month encountered for January-May 2026. This sharp increase has created problems." However, we are not inclined to 'cut back' on the IIER features that are especially attractive to aspiring authors, although we will have to tighten our rationing of access. One reason for being not inclined to 'cut back' on these IIER features is occasional uplifting encouragement from authors. For example, this 2026 email (anonymised):
Four years ago, my paper "(title deleted for anonymisation)" was published in IIER. It was my first paper to reach an international readership - written in the early stages of my PhD, without much experience in academic publishing and without funds to cover article processing charges. I chose IIER because of its good reputation in educational research circles, its commitment to reasonable review timelines, and its independence from large commercial publishers. The fact that it offered genuine open access without APCs was not a minor consideration at that point in my career - it was decisive.However, IIER does need ways to cope with 'Number received increasing'. There are numerous potential options that relate to becoming less attractive to aspiring authors. Some, such as article publishing charges, APCs) have long ago been ruled out as a step towards curbing the flow. Another 'becoming less attractive' step that can be quickly ruled out relates to some phrases used in a recent editorial,
... 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) [b., repeated in c. and d.]We have observed that that acceptance of one or two articles from country XX often has been followed by a notable short- or medium-term increase in submissions from country XX. "Countries new to IIER" have contributed substantially to 'Number received increasing'. These countries tend to be in the 'global south' and often regarded as being under-represented in the international literature in educational research [h]. We refrain from giving detailed illustrative examples, because all potential examples relate to looking at both successful and unsuccessful submissions, with the latter typically being much larger in numbers and subject to strict confidentiality. We will need to devote considerable time to extracting data from our all-submissions files 2015-2026, and devising an anonymisation that reliably safeguards a strict confidentiality for unsuccessful submissions. However, although time, capacity and illustrative examples remain limited, we wish to confirm that IIER remains open to considering "countries new to IIER".
One phrase used above, "... outline some of the steps IIER may take to tighten our rationing of access...". is new to our discourse about 'Number received increasing'. After the paragraphs above have 'ruled out' some of the steps, what (if any?) may remain?
Percentage rejected editorially increasing
This is an inevitable consequence from Number published has 'flatlined' and Number received increasing. The pace of this trend has been increased by our trialling of the modified review process foreshadowed in IIER Editorial 34(2) [e.].
The new guidelines actively explore ways to reduce the amount of time that an external reviewer may have to commit to reviewing an article. Experience over the years suggests to us that many reviewers can reach a soundly-based recommendation, to reject or accept an article, within a time frame that is less onerous than the time frame required to compose comprehensive advice that can be copied to the article's authors.Although in trialling and refining since mid-2025, the new guidelines remain a work in progress, particularly in relation to templates, briefings and guidelines for associate editors, and briefings and guidelines for reviewers. Another matter requiring monitoring is whether there is any tendency for reviewers who are under time pressures to opt for a 'quick and easy' solution (choose 'Accept' from our summary given in the preceding paragraphs, whilst being aware of the high level of editorial rejection made before the external review process).Therefore, to trial this perspective, we are proposing new guidelines under which Duty Editor external reviews will advise reviewers that after reading their allocated article, they are to return one of the following two kinds of responses.
Recommendation: Accept
Optionally, add succinct comments about ways to improve the article.
Recommendation: Reject
Required, add succinct reasons for recommending rejection of the article.
Again using "...unable to consider any new submissions..."
This is another step underlying 'percentage rejected editorially increasing'. Editorial 35(3) [b.] narrated our August 2025 to September 2025 experiences with a template that combined an acknowledgment of submission and advice of immediate rejection. Editorial 35(3) outlined the core aims and advised that:
... our resumption of consideration of new submissions ... will occur on 1 October [2025], though under a severe caveat: IIER's acceptance rate will have to fall substantially lower than the 10 to 12% rate sustained during 2019 to 2024.Very regrettably, and much too soon after the first, we have imposed a second "... unable to consider any new submissions..." period, for "new submissions made during June 2026 and possibly July also." This new period was made necessary by the same pressures that were outlined in Editorial 35(3) [b.], plus some newer concerns, currently expressed as follows:
The "triggers" for this drastic and deeply regrettable action are the recent increases in IIER's monthly submission rate, the emergence of longer delays between submission, acceptance and publication, and an urgent need to reserve more editorial staff time for preparing IIER 36(2), scheduled for 23 June 2026 publication.The time-consuming problem of "AI hallucinations" in References lists, noted for IIER in Editorial 36(1) [d.], is a significant additional load, although there is a glimmer of hope in observing a reduced incidence in copy editing for IIER 36(2) compared with 36(1). Also, as outlined in the next subsection, we do need to reserve more time for pursuing the commissioning of special issues of IIER as a potential practical step towards the eventual emergence of one or several new journals [d.]. Hence the possibility of a prolongation of the "...unable to consider any new submissions..." period, possibly into "July also."During 2025 IIER averaged 76.6 submissions per month, with an increase to 99.6 submissions per month encountered for January-May 2026. This sharp increase has created problems.
Submissions already in our review queue to date have filled 36(3) (due end September 2026) and will nearly fill 35(4) (December 2025). Facing increasing periods of delay between submission, acceptance and publication, we feel that it is fairest to give authors prompt advice about starting on the difficult task of finding another journal.
Preparing IIER 36(2) for publication has encountered unexpected higher demands for copy editing time per article, especially in the difficult and time consuming area of checking for "AI hallucinations" in References lists. There are similar time-consuming problems in conducting initial assessments of submissions.
Percentage rejected after external review decreasing sharply
This trend accords with the trends outlined above in 'Numbers received increasing' and 'Percentage rejected editorially increasing', reinforced by 'Percentage rejected editorially increasing'.
Percentage accepted decreasing sharply
This trend reflects all the trends outlined above, aligning with with a short to medium term need to address the problem discussed above and currently templated as:
... the emergence of longer delays between submission, acceptance and publication ... Submissions already in our review queue to date have filled 36(3) (due end September 2026) and will nearly fill 35(4) (December 2025).
... well-established journals could explore the creation of region-focused sister journals or supplementary outlets that provide additional publication opportunities while maintaining comparable standards... (Cheema & Pervez, 2026)
| Best "403" error message Our increased devotion of editorial time to "... verifying every Reference list citation" [b.] has diversified and increased our exposure to the Internet's "403" error message [b.]. Our '403 of the month' (encountered on 13 June 2026) is nominated here for the clarity and bluntness of the rebuff, and its projection of unchallengeable authoritarianism. It arose several times for several IIER 36(2) articles when attempting to access an Iranian domain to verify a reference. Flippancy aside, this kind of "access denied" may be unfortunate for the citation counts of Iranian authors, and editors in the rest of the world may wonder whether they may be, unknowingly, a cause of "trouble" for an Iranian author. |  |
| Authors: Dr Roger Atkinson and Dr Clare McBeath are two of IIER's current Co-editors.
Please cite as: Atkinson, R. & McBeath, C. (2025). IIER Editorial 35(2): (i) IIER's 2024 review outcomes; (ii) Miscellanea. Issues in Educational Research, 35(2), ii-viii. http://www.iier.org.au/iier36/editorial36-2.html |