British Journal of Educational Technology
© British Educational Research Association
Edited By: Cristina Costa, Sara Hennessy, Carey Jewitt, Ian Menter, and Andreja Istenič Starčič
Impact Factor: 1.633
ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2015: 38/230 (Education & Educational Research)
Online ISSN: 1467-8535
Please read these notes carefully. Ensuring that you have complied with all the requirements for submission of manuscripts will help to ensure that we can consider your work quickly and give you a prompt decision. Indeed, only submissions that conform to the guidelines and that include all required components (e.g. practitioner notes, keywords and open access statements) can be sent out for peer review.
BJET is a primary source for academics and professionals in the expanding fields of educational and training technology throughout the world. The Journal is published by Wiley on behalf of The British Educational Research Association (BERA).
Articles cover the theory, methods, development and applications of digital technologies in education, including: higher and vocational education, schooling and early years settings, training, informal learning, and low-resource settings. They may include such subjects as:
- Educational applications of digital technologies;
- Psychology of learning and communication;
- Pedagogy for individual, group and collaborative learning;
- Learning support and guidance;
- Design, development and application of learning tools and systems;
- Innovation in educational systems;
- Leadership and management in technological innovation and change;
- Curriculum development and course design;
- Open, distance, blended and flipped learning;
- Professional development for educational/organisational change;
- Monitoring and quality assurance;
- Evaluation of technological innovations;
- Formative and summative assessment;
- Cost effectiveness.
Since researchers, policymakers and practitioners need to know how the possibilities of educational technology can be maximised and problems of adoption and sustainability minimised, BJET particularly welcomes such submissions as:
- Multi-site, multi-perspective studies by teams of researchers testing promising approaches and fostering further developments;
- Longitudinal studies that evidence the benefits of educational technology innovations to systems and institutions;
- Reports on educational technology initiatives which met with problems and/or failed to achieve their aims, and the lessons to be learned from these;
- Research studies that confirm, build upon or contradict previous BJET contributions.
We welcome jargon-free writing: write as clearly as you can. Remember that our readers are busy people: conciseness is a virtue, whatever the overall length. Avoid parochial references and assumptions: for many BJET readers English is not their mother tongue. Age groups of students should be clarified rather than referring only to “Grade 5, Year 6, etc.” Spell out all acronyms first time around.
Importantly, reports of experimental work should be analytical, not merely descriptive: reviews of developing fields should be critical, not merely informative; theoretical overviews should contain some original contribution or novel perspective.
We are looking for articles that "take us beyond what we already know:" A description of an established methodology in a familiar environment needs to have some novel aspect or be spectacularly written, if it is to gain the approval of the reviewers.
Articles should not normally exceed 6000 words including references to any sources that readers might wish to trace. However, there is no merit in lengthy reference lists per se. Wherever possible, the reasons for citing a reference should be clear from the context. Please check very carefully both their accuracy and presentation (see style notes below).
BJET is heavily oversubscribed (our acceptance rate is currently below 10%) and we regret that over-length articles cannot be accommodated. Occasionally it is not possible to make the argument fully within 6000 words, for example where detailed qualitative data or in-depth reviews are presented, so we allow some leeway - but we do need to be convinced that the additional material is really necessary. An exception to the word limit may be made where a review article cites a large number of relevant references. Note that the option to submit supplementary online material is open to all authors and this can be a very valuable way to make available to interested readers further data, detailed research instruments, technical information, video exemplars, details of articles included in systematic reviews, etc. Information necessary to understand the research methods and findings should be included in the main text, however. For examples of a BJET article using this facility, see here.
We strongly advise that you ask one or more of your colleagues to review your article before you submit it to BJET. In our experience internal peer review can be very helpful in polishing submissions. If English is not your first language, to minimise risk of immediate rejection it will be important to enlist the help of a native English speaker to edit the piece, to correct grammar and ensure that idioms and spelling are correct. This too makes it easier for the reviewers to give full justice to your work.
Authors for whom English is a second language may choose to have their manuscript professionally edited before submission to improve the English. Information can be found at http://authorservices.wiley.com/bauthor/english_language.asp. All services are paid for and arranged by the author, and use of this service does not guarantee acceptance or preference for publication.
You may, if you wish, seek the assistance of a 'Critical Friend' who can support the revision of your paper for BJET - follow the link for more information on the Critical Friend arrangement. The procedure for working with a critical friend is first, to submit your paper to BJET in the usual way. It is helpful if you can note in your covering letter that you are interested in joining the Critical Friend programme. We will then take an initial look at the paper to see whether it falls within the scope of the Journal and whether it is a candidate for the Critical Friend Programme. Reviewers may also suggest support from a Critical Friend in making revisions.
A set of guidelines for how to optimise articles for search engines, including examples of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ titles and abstracts in this respect, are available on our website here: http://olabout.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-828012.html.