Thinking about metrics and quality.
This journal is receiving record numbers of submissions from academics across the globe, which is great news; the editorial team is increasing its review work and has been expanded, and the metrics are looking strong. Over the last year, the journal had 655,000 downloads/views, though this only relates to articles read via Taylor & Francis online, as open-access articles can be read via a subject or institutional repository. There are varying metrics to review if readers and authors are looking for a way to judge quality, both at article level (citations on Web of Science, CrossRef and Scopus as well as Altmetric Attention Score) and journal level, such as Impact Factor over 2–5 years, Impact Score, h-index, SNIP, CiteScore and SCImago Journal Rank. But to what extent do these metrics help you decide a journal’s quality? They can give an indication, but there is much more to explore before making a choice of which journal is best for a specific paper, for example, speed and acceptance metrics in relation to the author’s context, but more importantly the aim and scope of the journal and its coverage of a particular subject domain.
As an editorial team, we are sometimes bemused by the variation of subject content in submissions. We have a 25% acceptance rate and regularly in editorials we try to encourage papers on topical and innovative studies relating to online interactive learning or learning with digital and interactive tools. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been increased interest in remote learning and how much or how little interactivity this can engender. But of course current trends in interactive learning tend to focus on artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality and gamification, linking these factors to learning motivation, engagement and achievement. That does not mean that we would only welcome papers in these topical and trending areas: it is important to facilitate debate in the educational research community about the impact of increasingly ubiquitous technologies, and we have definitely moved on from explaining learning management systems and flipped learning as innovative topics for study. But there is often a new context, be it geographical or practical, in which well-known interactive technologies or strategies can offer useful insights provided the research methodology is sound.
What surprises us is that in any 20 or so submissions there is likely to be at least one which doesn’t relate to the specific journal scope, wasting everyone’s time, not least the author’s. We ask ourselves whether the authors have actually looked at the journal’s scope (on the website) and read some of the journal’s articles in their field. We often have to encourage authors to submit to other journals which do relate to their own subject content and do not relate to interactive learning environments. In addition, we sometimes have to reject interesting papers which are sound academically but cover already very well-published ideas.
The fundamental questions here are: why and for whom are you writing? If we consider what prompted the idea, we understand that a well-received conference paper is often the basis for a journal submission. But while the conference delegates and reviewers may have found a study unusual and exciting, particularly as this could be something delegates might relate directly to their own practice, when it comes to journal submission it really is worth plunging into the journal and reviewing what has been published there. This will help guide authors to the style, preferred methodologies and trending arguments which readers find useful. If the purpose of submission is career advancement, or dissemination of ideas, contributing to the field or fulfilling funding requirements, then it is vital that time is not wasted submitting to an ill-suited journal. Journal metrics will then be much less relevant to the choice than previously published articles. The quality of the journal chosen cannot only be measured in citations, since we may be dealing with a new departure, unexplored ground which is broadly related to the scope of the journal. What may matter more will be those who are published in this journal, academic colleagues, or leaders in the subject domain of the author’s research; perhaps an editorial approach which encourages new critical thinking rather than endlessly similar keywords.
It would be simple just now to focus this journal on the study of chatbots and natural language processing in education. We attract and are interested in, papers on this aspect of artificial intelligence. But we are not chasing metrics to the extent that only trending topics are considered. Our rejections are based on the quality of writing and appropriateness and depth of research, plus whether conclusions offer our readers critical insights which may span a wider field than the immediate study. If a paper is genuinely developing understanding of interactive learning, whether theoretical or practical, in whatever context, we are likely to request the precious time of our peer reviewers. Just as our educational institutions are increasingly using shortcuts, algorithms, and dubious metrics to determine whether staff are worth their pay, rather than their ability to inspire genuine learning, so in this journal, shortcuts such as metrics, fashionable keywords and titles might grab attention but do not always denote quality.