Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(1). i Editorial: Volume 32 Issue 1 In this editorial we have provided updated bibliometric data to provide readers with information about the journal’s publication, review and article access statistics, the articles attracting the most interest over the past year and the citation performance of the journal. The data has been summarised in a series of tables below along with explanatory notes and brief commentary. Table 1 2014/2015 AJET Publication Summary 2014 2015 Issues published 6 6 Articles published 48 46 Editorials published 6 6 Article and editorial downloads (to 28/2/16) 88745 37402 Average downloads per article/editorial 1643 719 * Note 2015 downloads are comparable to 2014 data over same period. As can be seen within Table 1, AJET published 46 articles and 6 editorials in 6 issues in 2015, a similar publication volume to 2014. Downloads of 2014 articles remained strong in 2015, with over 22,000 additional downloads since June 2015. Downloads of 2015 articles has also been strong with over 37,000 downloads so far. Table 2 Top 2015 AJET Articles by Download Article Authors Issue Downloads Learning styles and perceptions of student teachers of computer-supported collaborative learning strategy using wikis Kai Ming Li Vol 31, No 1 1904 The effects of face-to-face and computer- mediated peer review on EFL writers’ comments and revisions Mei-ching Ho Vol 31, No 1 1810 Technology acceptance among pre-service teachers: Does gender matter? Timothy Teo, Xitao Fan, Jianxia Du Vol 31, No 3 1791 Video-based feedback on student assessment: scarily personal Michael Henderson, Michael Phillips Vol 31, No 1 1776 How do virtual world experiences bring about learning? A critical review of theories Swee-Kin Loke Vol 31, No 1 1344 Table 2 shows the five most downloaded articles published in 2015. Reader interest in articles which focus on learning online with peers appears noticeably strong, with the three articles by Li, Ho and Loke all touching on this topic. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(1). ii Table 3 Acceptance Rates for 2013/2014 AJET Submissions* 2013 Submissions 2014 Submissions Total Articles % of total submissions % of peer- reviewed submissions Total Articles % of total submissions % of peer- reviewed submissions Total submissions 469 438 Declined at editorial review 370 79% 336 77% Sent for peer review 99 21% 102* 23% Declined following peer review 52 11% 53% 50* 11% 49% Accepted following peer review 47 10% 47% 39* 9% 38% * Note that some 2014 submissions are still in process because we are awaiting revised submissions from authors prior to second round review Table 3 shows a comparison of the number of submissions and acceptance rates for articles submitted in 2013 and 2014. It is important to note that acceptance rates for 2015 submissions are not yet available because many 2015 submissions are still under review or back with the author for revisions. The number of submissions received remained high but with a slight reduction (7%) from 2013 to 2014. Interestingly the number of submission grew again (to 512) in 2015. The percentage of articles found suitable to send out for peer review (23% in 2014) and the percentage of articles accepted following peer review (38% in 2014) have remained relatively stable. Table 4 Thomson Reuters JCR SSCI Impact Factor 2013 2014 Thomson Reuters Web of Science Journal Citation Reports (JCR) Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) Two Year Impact Factor 0.875 0.648 JCR SSCI citations in specified year to AJET articles in the 2 previous years 140 94 JCR SSCI Five Year Impact Factor 1.198 1.006 JCR SSCI citations in specified year to AJET articles in the 5 previous years 381 338 JCR SSCI Two Year Impact factor ranking within Education & Educational Research Category 84th of 219 131st of 224 Table 4 shows a summary of citation statistics from the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) Journal Citation Reports (JCR), while Table 5 shows a summary of Google Scholar citation statistics. Readers interested in a detailed discussion of these statistics and how they are Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(1). iii calculated are referred to the editorial within issue 30(3) of AJET. AJET’s JCR Two Year Impact Factor for 2014 was down slightly on 2013, while the Five Year Impact Factor was also down but only marginally. The Two Year Impact Factor tends to fluctuate notably from year to year as highly cited papers come into or move out of the data window, whereas the longer time window for the Five Year Impact Factor has a smoothing effect on the data. AJET’s performance on the Google Scholar citation metrics further improved from its strong position in 2014, with its h5-index increasing from 30 to 33. Google Scholar’s ranking of Educational Technology journals places AJET 8th internationally which is very encouraging. Table 5 Google Scholar Citation Metrics June 2014 June 2015 Google Scholar h5-index 30 33 Google Scholar h5-median 57 43 Google Scholar h5-index ranking within Educational Technology category 8th 8th Finally, Table 6 shows AJET’s five most cited articles of all time, based on citation statistics from Google Scholar. It is interesting that all five articles were published in 2010, which must have been an excellent year for high quality and high interest articles in AJET. Table 6 AJET’s most cited articles since 2010 (Google Scholar) Article Authors Issue Citations Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web 2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software C McLoughlin, MJW Lee Vol 26, No 1, 2010 258 Smartphones give you wings: Pedagogical affordances of mobile Web 2.0 T Cochrane, R Bateman Vol 26, No 1, 2010 170 Using wikis for collaborative learning: Assessing collaboration through contribution T Judd, G Kennedy, S Cropper Vol 26, No 3, 2010 134 Blended learning environments: Using social networking sites to enhance the first year experience J McCarthy Vol 26, No 6, 2010 111 The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy W Drexler Vol 26, No 3, 2010 105 In this issue The articles in this issue of AJET are, as usual, diverse in focus, methodology and context. Virtual worlds continue to be of interest, with Chow utilising a structural equation modelling to explore the variables that influence the sense of presence which has been claimed as a contributing factor in the efficacy of learning in a 3D virtual world. This perhaps helps to set the scene for the article by Vrellis, Avouris and Mikropoulos who explore virtual worlds in terms of Learning outcome, presence and satisfaction finding that presence was positively correlated to satisfaction but not to the learning outcome. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2016, 32(1). iv Social networking, such as through Facebook, also continues to be of interest with Kabilan exploring its functionality and efficacy as a site for e-portfolio development. In contrast Hope challenges the higher education sector to recognise that while social networking sites can offer valuable possibilities for education and learning they also “distract” (or free) students from the often mundane reality of study, whilst reinforcing “damaging, rigid definitions of work and study.” The higher education sector is also challenged by Devlin and McKay in their study on how students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds in Australian universities and be supported through digital technologies. They indicate that student success was facilitated by the use of a range of resources and media, facilitating interactive and connected learning, enabling personalised learning and assuring high academic standards. Although they do not directly refer to social networking sites, one does consider if Kabilan’s utilitarian and Hope’s critical approaches may offer further insight in supporting students from a low socioeconomic background. Hong and Chiu’s paper look beyond technology to explore students’ perception of the role of ideas and how such perceptions related to their knowledge-building practices. Jang and Chang return to the concept of technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) to better understand the tension between student and instructor perceptions and conclude that such a framework, specifically a TPACK questionnaire, may usefully aid professional learning and improvement of technology enabled education provision. Mackness, Bell and Funes also take a broad view with their exploration of the rhizome as a metaphor for teaching and learning in a massive open online course (MOOC). They found that while many learners welcomed the anti-authoritarian, anti-hierarchical characteristics of this approach, lack of depth of engagement with the rhizome concept could lead to imbalances in power relations and increased vulnerability for some learners. Welcome In this issue we also formally welcome Eva Heinrich to the Lead Editorial team. Eva is an Associate Professor in the School of Engineering & Advanced Technology at Massey University, New Zealand. Her work has recently included the use of digital technologies in assessment and ePortfolios as well as the complexity of academic professional learning. Eva brings a wealth of research and editorial experience to AJET which has already strengthened AJET’s editorial process. Barney Dalgarno, Eva Heinrich & Michael Henderson Lead Editors Australasian Journal of Education Technology Editorial: Volume 32 Issue 1