Challenges for journal editors: An assist from AI?

As the JDLTE editors, we have noted several changes in our journal’s submission and review procedures in recent months. First, we are receiving a substantial increase in the number of submissions to our journal. Second, we are experiencing an increasing challenge in getting our reviewers to agree to complete reviews and completing these reviews in a timely matter when we request their reviews. Thus, we were especially interested in an article titled “The Peer Review Crisis” in Inside Higher Ed that revealed that both our challenges are not unique to the JDLTE (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2022/06/13/peer-review-crisis-creates-problems-journals-and-scholars—Flagherty, 2022). Securing qualified reviewers and getting them to review in a timely manner is a current problem for research journals. We found the news that we were not the only journal facing this problem reassuring, and we look forward to conversations with other journal editors seeking relief from the situation. As most of you know, the JDLTE is a journal supported by ISTE and was first created by an ISTE Special Interest Group for members interested in technology in teacher education. The fact that the JDLTE was created by a focused community of scholars and practitioners committed to advancing the appropriate use of technology in teacher education provides an advantage for the JDLTE in addressing the current challenge of identifying and retaining highly qualified peer reviewers. This core group of scholars offers a good source of experienced, committed, and skilled reviewers and has allowed the JDLTE to create an unusually focused and committed Editorial Review Board. Given our current challenges, we will return to this community to seek additional qualified reviewers for the JDLTE to help address our current needs. Qualified reviewers must demonstrate a strong record of publication in refereed journals in areas related to technology in teacher education, with at least one article published in the JDLTE. Nominations for reviewers (including self-nominations) should be sent to Ann Thompson at [email protected]. We anticipate adding several new reviewers to the JDLTE Review Board from our research community.

The recent challenges facing journal editors have also been one factor encouraging editors to examine the possibilities of AI tools such as ChatGPT to assist in the editing process. Several articles now address the possibilities and concerns for using AI in the review process. Interestingly, conclusions from these articles are in basic agreement on most issues of appropriate and inappropriate uses of AI for editors. There is clear agreement among scholars that AI has the potential to assist in the peer review process and that editors must be familiar with the limitations of AI in this role. Areas of concern about using AI in the peer review process include confidentiality, transparency, human involvement, and quality. Authors and editors must be totally clear on how AI was used in the creation and peer review of the article. Authors, reviewers, and editors must educate themselves on the pitfalls of using AI in the research process and ensure that human intervention is an important part of the process (Biswas et al., 2023). The arguments for using AI in the editorial process generally focus on using AI to assist with the organizational and editorial parts of the process. There is general agreement that AI can assist in the editing process and that AI might be especially useful as an editing tool for non-English speaking scholars. Using AI editing tools may open more opportunities for international scholars to share their research. There is also agreement that AI can be helpful in the managerial part of the journal process as it can assist with tasks such as communications with authors, initial screening of manuscripts, plagiarism detection, and organizing manuscripts (Hosseini & Horbach, 2023; Schintler et al., 2023).

As a research journal emphasizing technology, the JDLTE has a responsibility to assume a leadership role among journal editors in discovering and sharing appropriate uses of AI in our work. We plan to work with other journal editors on this task and look forward to the opportunity. There is general agreement on the need for editors, authors, and funding agencies to work together to develop guidelines for AI applications for the research journal environment (Schintler et al., 2023).

In this JDLTE issue, you will read three articles focused on contemporary topics of interest to the technology and teacher education community. The article, Improving Pre-Service Teachers’ Argumentation Skills: A Holistic Online Scaffolding Approach, investigates using a holistic online scaffolding design to develop pre-service teachers’ argumentation skills. Using an explanatory mixed methods design, pre-service teachers were asked to solve case-based problem scenarios situated in teaching methods contexts. The experimental group showed significant improvement in argumentation skills, especially in evidence, alternative theory, and counterargument. The article titled, Real Needs, Tailored Solutions: Developing Customized Online Professional Development Programs for Teachers—A Case Study, explores the perceptions and experiences of English as foreign language (EFL) teachers after participating in an asynchronous online professional development program. The findings offer insight into designing relevant, practical, and flexible online professional development programs. The authors also suggest applying the CoI framework (cognitive, social, and teaching presence) in online learning environments will enhance professional development program satisfaction and engagement. Finally, the study titled, Do Years of Teaching Experience Matter in Maker Teacher Professional Development? K-12 Teachers’ Knowledge, Attitudes, and Design of Maker Lessons examines how years of teaching experience impact K-12 teachers’ ability to apply maker-centered instruction. Findings report that novice and veteran teachers are positive and interested in applying maker technology in teaching. Still, they reported low confidence and comfort in using maker technology. Enjoy reading this research!

Ann D. Thompson
Iowa State University
[email protected]
Denise A. Schmidt-Crawford
Iowa State UniversityDenise L. Lindstrom
West Virginia University

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).