Start Submission Become a Reviewer

Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

Peer-reviews will be conducted anonymously by two reviewers.

We seek to ensure that the topics covered in the submission relate to the specialist area of at least one of the reviewers.

Reviewers will be asked to consider whether or not the submission is suitable for the JIME audience. Before submitting their paper authors should consider whether it could be made more understandable to an international and/or non-specialist readership.

We see to provide authors with constructive, developmental reviews that will help them to produce publishable submissions, in future submissions if not the current one. Submissions considered suitable for review will be assessed for clarity, sound methodology/data analysis and validity of conclusions.

Reviewers will make one of four recommendations:

  • Accept submission: no revisions are required other than those that would normally be carried out during the copy-editing/proof-reading process.
  • Revisions required: the submission would be acceptable for publication if minor revisions were made as outlined in your reviewers comments. The editorial team will be responsible for checking that the revisions have been completed satisfactorily.
  • Resubmit for review: the submission is relevant for the JIME audience and has the potential to be of publishable quality. It requires major revisions and should be resubmitted for review.
  • Decline submission: the submission is unfortunately not relevant for the JIME audience.

Following publication

The final publication will be freely accessible on the JIME site.

Section Policies

Articles

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Book and eBook Reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Editorial

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Perspective

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Online media reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Video and audio reviews

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Posters

  • Open Submissions
  • Indexed
  • Peer Reviewed

Reviewer Guidelines

Submissions should have a clear educational focus or application, and should illuminate the special contribution that interactive media can make to learners' knowledge, understanding or skill. Submissions are expected to advance knowledge in the field in some way, by developing theory, or critiquing existing work, or providing an analysis or framework for understanding empirical findings.

Different kinds of submissions will be judged by different criteria. Ideally, we are looking for integrated submissions that present the theoretical basis for a technology, its design process and implementation, its evaluation, and theoretical implications. However, one or more these aspects may form the basis for a submission.

  • Empirical Articles: describe the collection and interpretation of data concerning the design or use of an educational technology artifact. Data might include interviews, observations, surveys or experimental manipulations. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection are welcome. Quantitative analyses should include appropriate statistical tests. Authors should clarify and critique the theoretical basis for the technology being evaluated. Review criteria include the appropriateness and rationale for the methods of data collection and analysis, and the significance of the conclusions for practice or research in educational technologies.
  • Experience Articles: describe the application of principled methods, theory, or tools to the design, development, and/or deployment of an educational technology artifact. Review criteria include the value of the reflections abstracted from the experience and their relevance to other designers, educators, or researchers working in the field.
  • Systems Articles: describe the software and technology associated with a novel application, design, or development tool. Review criteria include the originality, preciseness of description and relevance to other educational technology designers or educators. Authors should be clear as to what extent the system has been implemented and evaluated, and should make explicit the theoretical basis for the technology if this is not the focus of the submission.
  • Literature Reviews and Theoretical Analyses: characterise the literature relating to a particular issue; identify key theoretical issues that need to be resolved; propose ways forward. Review criteria include the conceptual framework (if any) used to characterise and structure the literature review, justification of the importance of a theoretical issue, and potential of the theoretical approach proposed.

JIME Review Process

We usually give reviewers up to 4 weeks in which to read and review a paper.

From a reviewer's perspective, the process is as follows:

Read the submission, and try any interactive demonstrations or websites that the author has provided

Please download the document from this site to read through and make notes. Optionally you may upload a new version of the paper with your comments in then you may do so.

Formulate review comments

You may wish to use your normal word processor from which you can then paste text into the website. We have provided sections both for comments to the author and comments that are just to the Editor. Generally it is best to make most comments so that they can be shared with the author, by repeated "Save" of comments these can be organised into sections.

Organise your comments under JIME's general criteria:

-          Originality of Ideas

-          Clarity of Goals

-          Appropriateness of Methods (where relevant)

-          Clarity & Credibility of Results

-          Quality of Writing

Submit your recommendation to the Editor. There are four possible recommendations:

-          Accept submission: no revisions required other than those that would normally be carried out during the copy-editing/proof-reading process

-          Revisions required: the submission is acceptable for publication if minor revisions are made as outlined in your reviewers’ comments.  The editorial team will be responsible for checking that the revisions have been completed satisfactorily.

-          Resubmit for review: the submission is relevant for the JIME audience and has the potential to be of publishable quality.  It requires major revisions and should be resubmitted for review.  If you tick this option, the editor may ask you whether you are prepared to review the resubmission.

-          Decline submission

Submit your review

Please return to this site to enter your comments by clicking on the comment icon and to upload any additional files. You may leave the site and return, saved comments will be retained and can be editted again if you wish. Once complete please select your recommendation, note if you think that none of the recommendations are suitable then indicate "see comments" and include the recommendation in the comments to the editor. Finally submit the review.

If you cannot use the Web to submit your review, then please send an email version, structured under the relevant headings, to the editor for the submission. However, we strongly encourage reviewers to go through the Web interface, since this relieves the burden on the Editor.

If you have ticked recommendation 1, 2 or 4, your obligations as a reviewer are completed. Thank you.  We very much appreciate your contribution.

Quick links