This Journal operates an open peer-review process. At JOERHE peer review is not blind. Instead, we have an open process where authors know who their reviewers are and reviewers know who their authors are. All comments provided by reviewers will be open and published alongside the article. This should allow for a more communicative and positive process for both reviewers and authors. As reviewer comments are published works, all reviewers will retain the copyright of their comments. We will not edit any reviewer comments before publication; however, if any comments violate our guidelines for being a reviewer, the journal reserves the right to dismiss the review and will not publish it alongside the article.
Open peer review is meant to be a kind and encouraging process for all and to foster a supportive and collaborative environment.
The list of authors should accurately illustrate who contributed to the work and how. All those listed as authors should qualify for authorship according to the following criteria:
- Have made substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
- Been involved in drafting the manuscript or revising it critically for important intellectual content;
- Given final approval of the version to be published. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content; and
- Agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Contributions from anyone who does not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed, with permission from the contributor, in the Acknowledgments section (for example, to recognize contributions from people who provided technical help, collation of data, writing assistance, acquisition of funding, or a department chairperson who provided general support). Prior to submitting the article, all authors should agree on the order in which their names will be listed in the manuscript.
Corresponding Author Responsibilities:
The corresponding author must submit the manuscript and related files (e.g. supporting data files, media, etc.). From the point of submission through to publication, all communication related to that manuscript will be directed to and received from the corresponding author. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors are aware of and approve the submission of the manuscript, its content, authorship, and order of authorship.
Data Sharing and Data Availability:
This journal encourages data sharing. You may submit your data as a supplemental file or include a link and citation to the data repository in which your data may be found.
You should list all funding sources in the Acknowledgments section. You are responsible for the accuracy of their funder designation. If in doubt, please check the Open Funder Registry for the correct nomenclature.
Reproduction of Copyright Material:
If excerpts from copyrighted works owned by third parties are included, credit must be shown in the contribution. It is your responsibility to also obtain written permission for reproduction from the copyright owners.
Originality and Preprint policy:
Only articles that have not been published previously, that have not been simultaneously submitted elsewhere, and that are not under review for another publication should be submitted to this journal. The journal editors will assume that submission of an article to this journal implies that all the foregoing conditions are applicable.
- Translations into English of a previously published paper not in English by the original author(s)
- Publication of all or part of a revised thesis or dissertation
- Publication of a paper previously made public as a conference presentation, white paper, technical report, or preprint
Conflicts of Interest
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ definition of conflicts of interest is as follows: “A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients’ welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain). Perceptions of conflict of interest are as important as actual conflicts of interest.”
Editors, authors, and peer reviewers should disclose interests that might appear to affect their ability to present or review work objectively. These might include relevant financial interests (for example, patent ownership, stock ownership, consultancies, or speaker’s fees), or personal, political, or religious interests.
Authors should state any conflicts of interest, or state that there are no conflicts of interest, in the main text of the submission following the Acknowledgements section.
Guidelines on Publishing and Research Ethics in Journal Articles
The journal requires that you include in the manuscript details Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, ethical treatment of human and animal research participants, and gathering of informed consent, as appropriate. You will be expected to declare all conflicts of interest, or none, on submission.
This journal follows the core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and handles cases of research and publication misconduct accordingly.
JOERHE welcomes quantitative and qualitative research articles and discussion pieces concerning Open Educational Resources in Higher Education. Authors are encouraged to discuss the practical applications of their knowledge and findings, propose best practices, discuss theoretical models and frameworks, and to describe their programmatic and practical experiences.
Download the Article Template Here
Main Text File
The main text file should be in Word format and include:
- Abstract (no more than 250 words)
- Up to five keywords
- Main body (3,000-6,000 words, excluding references)
- Literature Review
- Conflict of Interest Statement
This journal uses American Psychological Association (APA) reference style.
Figures and Supporting Information:
Up to four (4) figures, tables, graphs, diagrams, supporting information, and appendices may be supplied and should be embedded in the main body of the text. Additional items can be uploaded as supplementary electronic files e.g. survey instruments, data, etc.
Data/Supplementary Information (optional)
Any Datasets or Supplementary Information should be submitted as a separate file. The file should be clearly named and all information accompanied by legends or captions.
Please format your article submission into the Article Template before uploading.
The Innovative Practices section consists of short-form, practical, applicable, case-study type articles that are not research-based and provide a description of a practice, innovation, or program that is replicable and/or useful for individuals in higher education who are engaged in Open Pedagogy, Open Data, and/or Open Educational Resources. The addition of tables, toolkits, checklists, and other practical aids are encouraged.
Innovative Practice submissions should be 3,000-4,000 words excluding references and appendices. Innovative Practices undergo one round of open peer review as well as a review by the Section Editor.
Please format your article submission into the Innovatice Practices Template before uploading.
OER Review Proposal Submission
JOERHE welcomes proposals for OER content reviews. OER content eligible for review include textbooks and ancillary materials, activities, lesson plans, modules, and simulations at the post-secondary level. Proposals should be submitted as other articles in the current CFP to the "Reviews" section unless previously agreed upon by the Reviews Editor. The Reviews Editor will select the OER review proposal and invite a full review submission. Up to 5 review submissions will be chosen per JOERHE publication.
OER eligible for review must be:
- Published in an Institutional or OER Repository
- Have a persistent URL
- Have an open license, such as a Creative Commons license
OER Review Proposal Submission Guidelines
- Include a brief narrative of 100 words or less addressing the following:
- A link to the OER content
- Your experience with OER and/or OER reviews
- Why the OER merits review
If your proposal is accepted, you will work with the Reviews Editor to produce the following:
- Review Narrative
- Word File, MP3, MP4 acceptable
- Review Rubric
- The OER review narrative may be submitted in one of three ways:
- A Word File, no longer than 1,500 words in APA format
- Select "Submission Text" to upload file
- An MP4 file, screencast showing the material with an accompanying audio narrative, no longer than 10 minutes
- Select "Multimedia Submission" to upload file
- An MP3 file, audio narrative, no longer than 10 minutes
- Select "Multimedia Submission" to upload file
- Download OER Review Rubric as a Word File
- Upload completed Review Rubric as a Word File and include in File:
- Title of OER material
- Author(s) of content
- URL to OER content