Inaugural editorial: Updates and future directions

Abstract

In January 2023, after a 3-month period of acting Editor-in-Chief in conjunction with Laura Crane, I succeeded Alice Jones-Bartoli as Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Educational Psychology (BJEP); Ouhao Chen was appointed as the Deputy Editor-in-Chief. I would like to thank Alice for leaving the journal in an excellent state of health and to the Wiley editorial staff who have made me feel extremely welcome, regularly providing their expertise and support. In no particular order, I would particularly like to acknowledge Hannah Wakley, Vinubala Viswanathan and Rebecca Harkin. As it is nearly 12 months since Ouhao and I were appointed, it seemed opportune to update readers and colleagues, especially those who may be considering submitting to the BJEP, over recent developments in BJEP editorial operation and policy. I will then make some brief comments about special issues, reviews and meta-analyses, before a final comment about the word length of BJEP articles.

At the BJEP, we aim to provide authors with first decision on their manuscript within 90 days of submission. Over the past 12 months, we have not been able to meet this aspiration in many cases. Either I, or Wiley Editorial staff, have written to many authors to express our apologies and would like to offer my sincere apologies again. As an author myself I know, it can be deeply frustrating when having to wait a long time for a decision, especially when the eventual decision is not favourable.

There are numerous reasons for manuscripts taking longer than 90 days. Chief among those reasons is the difficulty in finding reviewers with sufficient expertise in a timely fashion. Each reviewer is allowed a 1-week grace period in which to respond before their invitation is automatically withdrawn and a new reviewer is invited. It is typical for a manuscript to receive somewhere between six and eight no responses. When reviewers do not respond to their invitation it is not uncommon to wait 2 or 3 months before two reviewers are in place to assess the manuscript. The 90-day period may have elapsed even before reviewers have begun their assessment. Given that, I would urge colleagues to decline invitations as soon as is feasible, if they do not have time or expertise to review a manuscript, in order to expedite the process.

These are issues that are not unique to the BJEP. Many journals, however, call on an editorial board to conduct a proportion of reviews. The contribution of such a board can be essential in meeting response–time targets and the BJEP was disadvantaged by the absence of such a board. We have addressed this issue recently and appointed 63 colleagues to an Editorial Advisory Board. I would like to express my thanks to colleagues who have accepted our invitation to generously offer their time and expertise. There is scope for further appointments and if you are an experienced reviewer, please do get in touch.

In addition, we have undertaken a substantial renewal of the Board of Associate Editors. This is due to colleagues stepping down, to ensure all areas of expertise are covered, and to expedite the handling of manuscripts by ensuring each Associate Editor does not become overloaded which can further slow the process. Three long-standing Associate Editors have stepped down, namely Stephen Houghton, Andrew Martin and Robert Klassen. It was immensely reassuring for me to be able to call on experienced colleagues as I was becoming acquainted with the role of Editor-in-Chief, and I am extremely grateful to all three. In addition, Laura Crane has also stepped down. I would also like to express my thanks to Laura for her contribution in working through a lengthy backlog of manuscripts that accumulated in the process of changing editorial teams.

The following Associate Editors have joined the BJEP Board of Associate Editors: Ioanna Bakopoulou (University of Bristol, UK), Drew Bailey (University of California Irvine, USA), Elaine Chapman (University of Western Australia, Australia), Paula Clarke (University of Leeds, UK), Martin Daumiller (University of Augsberg, Germany), Guy Roth (Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel), Edward Sosu (University of Strathclyde, UK), Hui Wang (The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong), Helen Watt (University of Sydney, Australia) and Michael Wigelsworth (University of Manchester, UK). This group brings a wealth of expertise and experience to the board; I welcome you all.

My aspiration is that by increasing the number of Associate Editors, calling on the expertise of the Editorial Advisory Board, and the expedient decline of review invitations by colleagues, we can work together to allow manuscripts to progress through the review process in a timely fashion. An additional step to providing decisions for authors within a timely fashion is to strengthen the criteria for decision making at the desk reject stage. This will then allow authors to be able to resubmit elsewhere or continue working on their manuscript, as they see appropriate, without having to wait 3 months or potentially longer, for a decision. In the next section, I offer some insight into the decision-making process at the desk reject stage.

The principal aim of the BJEP, as stated in the Aims and Scope on the website is to make ‘…a significant contribution to the understanding and practice of education as well as advances the field in terms of theory related to educational psychology’. Two of the most common reasons for a desk reject is that a manuscript is not sufficiently focused on education, or it does not make a sufficiently strong theoretical contribution. In relation to the former, we receive well-written manuscripts, frequently based on robustly conducted and analysed students, but where the focus is children, adolescents or development, rather than education. These types of manuscripts would be better suited to journals that deal with specific age groups, or development, rather than an educational journal such as the BJEP and will most likely be desk rejected. As I often write in my desk rejection emails, the reason for rejection is not a reflection of the quality of the manuscript, rather that it would be better suited to a different journal.

In relation to the latter, we receive manuscripts, often well-written, describing rigorous studies and which have useful results, but without a sufficiently strong theoretical focus. Frequently, these manuscripts pose exploratory research questions. Qualitative manuscripts of this type typically explore a phenomenon with those directly involved with education such as students, teachers, school leaders and others. From my perspective, these studies often bring educational phenomena to light and uncover nuance in a way that is difficult to achieve from solely quantitative studies; these types of studies are enormously valuable. The theoretical contribution of these studies, however, is often absent or limited. That may sound like a criticism, but it is not intended in that way; these types of manuscripts were never intended to make a substantial theoretical contribution but an applied contribution. Articles of this type will likely be desk rejected not due to a lack of quality but of a match to the journal aims and scope.

Manuscripts that pose exploratory questions are not solely qualitative but also quantitative. Latent profile analyses (LPAs) are becoming increasingly popular and are often accompanied with exploratory research questions. As the theoretical contribution of these manuscripts is limited, they will likely be desk rejected. I recommend to authors considering submitted to the BJEP that LPAs are treated in a similar way to studies using variable centre studies that are used to test interactions. For such manuscripts, I would expect to see the direction and nature of interactions theorized and hypothesized. The same equally applies to LPA studies; the number and configuration of profiles should be theorized and hypothesized.

A further type of quantitative manuscript that is often desk rejected is those dealing with the development or extension of a new measurement instrument or examining the properties of a new measurement instrument with a new sample. These types of manuscripts will be judged on their theoretical contribution. If studies are describing solely exploratory and/or confirmatory factor analyses they will likely be desk rejected. However, it is entirely plausible for manuscripts dealing with measures to make theoretical advances either in terms of the conceptual underpinning the measure or links from the measurement tool to theoretically derived antecedents and outcomes. In addition, I would recommend authors consult the most recent manual standards in educational testing published jointly by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association and National Council on Measurement in Education (2014). Addressing the level of rigour recommended in those guides in relation to validity, consistency, fairness, interpretation, and so on, is likely to enhance the worthiness of a manuscript.

A third major source of desk rejection relates to the methodological and analytic rigour of the studies described in manuscripts. The issues encountered here solely pertain to quantitative manuscripts. In consultation with Ouhao and the Editorial Board, we decided to stop accepting manuscripts where the principal research question was longitudinal mediation, and the design was based on cross-sectional data. To establish direction in mediation, a minimum of a two waves, and ideally three, of data collection are required (e.g., Cole & Maxwell, 2003; Rucker et al., 2011). In addition, mediation based on cross-sectional designs increases the likelihood of biased parameter estimates (Maxwell et al., 2011). There have been tremendous advances in the methodological and analytical sophistication of educational psychology research in the last 10–15 years. To keep pace with this trend and maintain the position of the BJEP as a leading international educational psychology publication, it was necessary to set a minimum threshold of rigour for studies where the principal research question was mediation.

There may be instances where studies include mediation based on cross-sectional data (e.g., as an extension to main analyses or as supplementary analyses) that are acceptable. For instance, in a structural equation model based on multi-wave data, authors may consider whether mediation occurs via concurrently measured variables as an alternative to time-lagged variables, studies may test indirect conditional (moderated) relations, data may be tested within a multi-level framework, and so on. In these instances, we would anticipate that longitudinal mediation, based on cross-sectional designs, is not the principal research question. These examples are generalizations, and each manuscript will be based on its own merit.

The final major reason for desk of quantitative manuscripts is that they do not meet a minimum level of methodological or analytic rigour to enable a substantial theoretical contribution. Analyses based solely on correlational or regression analyses to predict variable x from y, especially when using cross-sectional data, are unlikely to meet this minimum threshold. Reports of single experiments based on small samples may also fall into this category. I recommend authors conduct a follow-up experiment either at scale, that may allow for sample-based moderators to be tested, or as replication that includes an additional or alternative theoretical dimension, perhaps a second independent variable or additional outcomes.

We are keen to promote special issues. In 2023, we published two special issues. One focused on the potential of biophysiology for understanding motivation, engagement and learning experiences; the second on cognitive load theory. We presently have three special issues in process: ‘learning from errors and failure in educational contexts’, ‘peer relationships and student motivation’ and ‘process-oriented teacher motivation and instruction’. If you would be interested in proposing a special issue, please get in touch. They typically comprise eight to 12 papers, an Editorial by the team of guest editors and a commentary on the contribution of the individual papers. The guest editorial team may wish to identify and invite contributors of individual manuscripts themselves or we can place a call for papers on the BJEP website. In addition, Wiley can work with the guest editorial team to promote special issues through their social media channels.

We have set up a working party to explore the publication of narrative and systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses. Reviews have become more important (1) as a means of keeping up to date with advances in both research and practice in education, and (2), as a method of developing education practice guidelines. In the coming months, we will be compiling a set of guidance for reporting of narrative reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in BJEP. We know already that review manuscripts should report results of value to the field. Essentially, authors should justify the rationale for their review or meta-analysis, noting how it contributes to the knowledge-base in light of previously published results.

The word limit for a quantitative manuscript is 5000 words and a qualitative manuscript is 6000 words. Ad hoc requests for an extension to the word count will be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the issue is one of complex and lengthy methodological procedures or descriptions of analyses, my preference is for authors to remain within the existing word length. A streamlined presentation of methods of data collection and/or analysis should be presented within the main body of the manuscript and additional detail in a Supplementary File. Multi-study papers, reviews and meta-analyses may be difficult, if not impossible, to present within the existing word limits, and I am amenable to granting extensions for these types of manuscripts.

I hope that the information and guidance provided in this inaugural editorial will prove instructive for colleagues that are intending to submit to the BJEP. Inevitably they will continue to evolve and either I, or my successors, will continue to update the readership of the BJEP when there are changes in editorial operation and policy. I look forward to receiving your manuscripts in due course.

Not applicable.