Breaking News: Editor, Corresponding Editors and Senior Board members resign BJET

Paul A. Kirschner

This is the text of a letter sent to Times Higher Education sent by the Chief Editor, 3 Corresponding Editors, and 5 Senior Board members pertaining to their resignation from the British Journal of Educational Technology. The letter – in abridged form – will be online there on Thursday, December 9 and will also appear in the print magazine version of THE.

To our great dismay, Nick Rushby – editor of the British Journal of Educational Technology – has chosen to step down as editor. This, in itself, is not the full reason for our dismay, but rather, the events that led to this.

The basis for his decision lies in a conflict between him as Editor (together with much of the BJET Editorial Board), and the British Educational Research Association’s (BERA) reactions to a proposed amendment of the journal’s scope. The scope amendment was made to increase the journal’s quality by fine-tuning its criteria for selection or rejection. The editorial board of the journal was thoroughly consulted, worked collaboratively on the amendment, and had agreed to it in early September 2015.

The proposed change and BERA’s response to and position on it has led to an irreconcilable conflict regarding the editorial independence of BJET as journal. The email exchanges between Nick (along with a number of board members) and Mark Priestley, Chair of BERA Academic Publications Committee, relating to BERA’s support of the APC’s point of view on this matter made it clear to us that BERA wishes to have editorial control of the selection of content despite the views of the Editorial Board and the Journal’s Editor, and that this decision is intractable and not open to discussion.

BERA’s terms of reference state that it is responsible for “[S]etting general policies in terms of language and ethics for contributors and members involved in the editorial process.” The editor’s standard memorandum of agreement specifies that the editor must “comply with Editorial policy and all procedures and standards for the acceptance of manuscripts and to obtain BERA’s approval of any material changes to such policy, procedures and standards.”

In contrast, the Committee on Publication Ethics’ Guidelines for the boards of directors of learned society journals is quite clear that relationship of Editors of the journals of Learned Societies to those Societies should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence. It states:

The journals of Learned Societies are an important part of the scientific literature. Their management should be of the highest quality and ethically sound…the relationship of Editors of the journals of Learned Societies to those Societies is often complex. However, notwithstanding the economic and political realities of their journals, directors of Learned Societies should respect that their editors should make decisions on which articles to publish based on quality and suitability for readers rather than for immediate financial or political gain. Directors and employees should not be able to overrule these decisions. The relationship of Editors of the journals of Learned Societies to those Societies should be based firmly on the principle of editorial independence.

BJET’s scope statement, which is included in the Notes for Authors, must be consistent with the editorial decisions on what submissions will be considered. This is accepted editorial best practice. In seeking to over-ride the Editorial Board on a matter that affects quality and suitability for readers, BERA is interfering in editorial content and this is unacceptable.

This controversy should not be taken to reflect badly on Wiley, the publishers, who fully understand the decision of the editor and editorial board members. Wiley has been unstinting in its efforts and enthusiasm to raise the quality of the Journal, and to make the articles published in BJET more discoverable and helpful to readers. They have encouraged the Journal to introduce features such as video abstracts, structured practitioner notes, and meta-tagging. The editorial team could not have wished for a better or more publisher.

Though I am sending this, I do it on behalf of, and with the knowledge and support of those who have to date resigned namely Nick Rushby (Chief Editor), Colin Latchem, Meifeng Liu, Roza Valeeva (Corresponding Editors), and John Cowan, Clark Quinn, William Milheim, Nancy George and Jan Seabrook (Editorial Board members).

Yours sincerely

Paul Kirschner

P.S. At the time of writing, BERA has not yet named the interim editorial team and two more senior Board Members have resigned.

 

Advertisements

One thought on “Breaking News: Editor, Corresponding Editors and Senior Board members resign BJET

  1. Paul Kirschner says:

    Colin Latchem wrote this and asked me to add it:

    Further to Paul’s account of why members of the BJET editorial board, including myself, resigned, there is another aspect of this matter which concerns me greatly. From the days when I had the pleasure of doing work for the very effective National Council for Educational Technology in the UK, I have always adhered to the Council’s definition of educational technology, namely, the design, development and evaluation of systems, methods and media to improve learning. And I have always taken it for granted that “technology” is the systematic application of scientific knowledge to practical tasks. From this it would therefore follow that educational technology is based on theoretical knowledge drawn from such disciplines as communication, education, psychology, sociology, philosophy, artificial intelligence, computer science, etc. plus knowledge drawn from educational practice. And that educational technology aims to improve education, facilitate learning processes and increase the effectiveness and/or efficiency of educational and training systems.

    In recent years, I have become increasingly concerned that many of the papers submitted to BJET were simply focusing on the digital tools and failing to provide any evidence of the outputs, outcomes and impact. Most were focusing on higher education and very few were examining applications in the other sectors where educational technology has such an important role to play – schooling, TVET, overseas and community development. The editorial board members also noted that most of the studies were small-scale, one-off studies into whether learners or teachers liked or disliked certain methods or technological applications.

    We are living in an age of increasing expectations of accountability by governments, students, employers and the community at large. With these points in mind we felt that it was axiomatic that we should further refine the criteria for publication in BJET by saying in effect that the journal would only publish papers that provided sound evidence of improvements in learning or other benefits accruing from the investment of time, effort and money educational technology innovations. I for one was shocked and surprised when the teacher educators – of all people- in BERA said that we couldn’t say this and that we had to tone down the criteria. We were accused of scientificism (believing in or advocating science and the scientific method) and informed that “simply banning a particular type of qualitative research that is deemed to not be ‘objective’” was not to be countenanced. Quite apart from the matters of principle that Paul and others on the board rightly raised, where do these pronouncements by BERA take us intellectually and professionally in regard to maintaining the highest standards in educational technology and BJET itself?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s