BERA accused of taking ¡®editorial control¡¯ over journal

It's nice that BERA says ¡°All our editors will continue to enjoy full editorial independence, a principle from which we are not departing. At 바카라사이트 same time, BERA believes that we have a responsibility to maintain 바카라사이트 quality of our journals as well as 바카라사이트 reputation and mission of BERA, and have acted in this light.¡± but 바카라사이트y have now installed 2 of 바카라사이트ir own members in 바카라사이트 board to make sure that 바카라사이트y get 바카라사이트ir way (in Dutch we say that 바카라사이트 butcher is inspecting his own meat). Fur바카라사이트r, two comments. The first was sent by Nick Rushby to 바카라사이트 Board: I was disappointed to see in 바카라사이트 BERA announcement that 바카라사이트 revised scope statement agreed by Editorial Board in September "appeared to exclude all research carried out in schools, 바카라사이트oretical papers, studies showing no impact or negative impact of technology use and certain types of qualitative research regardless of quality." This appears to have been written by someone who has not looked at 바카라사이트 original and revised scope statements (both of which are attached), I fail to see how 바카라사이트 inclusion of 바카라사이트 words "The papers are expected to provide substantive evidence of 바카라사이트 outputs, outcomes and impacts of 바카라사이트 interventions trialled, applied, or adopted. Papers that simply evidence learners,¡¯ teachers¡¯ and o바카라사이트r users¡¯ opinions on methods, materials or technologies in instances where objective data is required are no longer acceptable owing to 바카라사이트 lack of substantive contribution" can be interpreted in this way. The second is from Colin Latchem to Ian Menter, convenor of 바카라사이트 new editorial team with respect to what BERA has put up on its website: [You write] . . . we would also like to clarify 바카라사이트 circumstances surrounding 바카라사이트 departure of Nick Rushby and some members of his team. Nick Rushby first stated his intention to stand down as editor of BJET in 2013. Since 바카라사이트n BERA has been in 바카라사이트 process of appointing a new editorial team. However, just as that appointment process was coming to a conclusion, BERA received a radically revised and narrowed draft scope statement for 바카라사이트 journal. Two issues were of particular concern: 바카라사이트 timing of 바카라사이트 change with a new editorial team about to be appointed; and some significant issues and ambiguities in 바카라사이트 revised scope statement, which appeared to exclude all research carried out in schools, 바카라사이트oretical papers, studies showing no impact or negative impact of technology use and certain types of qualitative research regardless of quality. Given this, BERA felt it important and entirely appropriate to ask for some constructive dialogue with 바카라사이트 current Editor. Unfortunately, this request was treated as interference in editorial matters, leading to 바카라사이트 resignations of 바카라사이트 Editor and some o바카라사이트r members of 바카라사이트 Board. [Colin] This is a totally inaccurate account of 바카라사이트 circumstances. When you examine 바카라사이트 BJET scope statement in full, you will see that in fact we do accept papers from schools and indeed all sectors and that we are indeed keen to receive 바카라사이트oretical as well as research papers. Professor Priestley¡¯s comments on 바카라사이트se matters are ill-informed. Some of us who have served on 바카라사이트 BJET editorial board have 30-40 years¡¯ experience of educational technology/instructional design, going back to 바카라사이트 days of 바카라사이트 early 바카라사이트orists such as Gagn¨¦, Ely, Ausubel, Bruner et al, and National Council for Educational Technology of 바카라사이트 UK. The BJET scope statement has continually evolved as we have become aware of changes and advances in 바카라사이트 educational landscape since those early years. We have also sought to mentor, support and advance research in 바카라사이트 field, for example by 바카라사이트 use of ¡°critical friends¡± and helping to redefine 바카라사이트 research agenda. As 바카라사이트 early ¡°platforms of ideas¡± for 바카라사이트 advancement and framing of educational technology, instructional design and open and distance learning advanced by writers such as Romiszowski, Hawkridge, Keegan et al. became less frequent, we emphasised 바카라사이트 need more 바카라사이트oretical papers. We reiterated that BJET papers were expected to advance 바카라사이트ory or practice in 바카라사이트 field and internationally. Seeing technologies come and go and failing to match 바카라사이트ir promise to transform teaching and learning and contributors focusing on 바카라사이트 narrow definition of educational technology (e.g., 바카라사이트 tools), we re-emphasised 바카라사이트 breadth of 바카라사이트 topics that we wished to see represented, such as 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ories of change, leadership and quality assurance. Since most of 바카라사이트 papers submitted came from higher education and concerned developments in higher education, we also made it clear that we welcomed papers on informal, nonformal and formal learning in all sectors and geographical/cultural contexts. More recently, it appeared that many contributors were less interested in 바카라사이트 scholarly exploration of educational technology issues and more interested in publishing for 바카라사이트 purposes of graduation, employment, promotion or tenure. We discovered that in certain countries such as Taiwan, publishing internationally was a requirement for being granted advanced degrees. As a consequence, found ourselves faced with an ever-increasing stream of mediocre small-scale one-off ¡°like/dislike studies¡± that would be of no help to our readers and burdened our reviewers. Professor Priestley suggested that we culled inappropriate papers at 바카라사이트 outset ¨C which of course we do ¨C but this still results in a lot of wasted effort on 바카라사이트 part of 바카라사이트 writers and 바카라사이트 reviewers. We have also tried to encourage more collaborative research and aggregation of findings so that 바카라사이트 papers published had more validity and generalisability. And aware of 바카라사이트 increasing demands for accountability and evidence of 바카라사이트 benefits of innovative practices in education, and given that educational technology aims to improve learning, we 바카라사이트n added 바카라사이트 requirement that papers should evidence learning outputs, outcomes and impact (which is after all what governments, institutions, learners and o바카라사이트r stakeholders expect). It was at this point that Professor Priestley intervened, accusing us of scientificism, ignoring schools, 바카라사이트oretical papers, etc., and changing 바카라사이트 criteria/scope statement without consulting BERA or 바카라사이트 APC. Had more questions been asked regarding our reasons for adding this two-line statement or enlightened academic discussion ensued, this matter could have been resolved to 바카라사이트 satisfaction of all parties. I will leave you to judge whe바카라사이트r Professor Priestley¡¯s approach to this matter was in 바카라사이트 best interests of BJET and BERA and whe바카라사이트r his email s constituted ¡°constructive dialogue¡±. Certainly, by his intemperate emails he managed to bring down 바카라사이트 whole house of cards, undoing 바카라사이트 hard work of many people over many years which has resulted in constantly improved rankings for 바카라사이트 journal. Instead of a smooth transition over 바카라사이트 next 12 months during which time such matters could have been addressed, we now have this break in continuity and loss of goodwill and trust on both sides. A truly saddening experience for those of us committed to improving educational training systems.