WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.799 OK, so picture the scenario. You are sitting 00:00:04.799 --> 00:00:07.019 at your desk, maybe it is a Saturday afternoon, 00:00:07.240 --> 00:00:10.080 and you are just trying to grind through a literature 00:00:10.080 --> 00:00:12.759 review. Oh, yeah, we have all been there. Right. 00:00:13.320 --> 00:00:16.960 Or you are pulling together research for a departmental 00:00:16.960 --> 00:00:19.940 strategy meeting. You are looking specifically 00:00:19.940 --> 00:00:22.600 at how digital learning landscapes are shifting. 00:00:22.739 --> 00:00:25.179 You are evaluating new methodology. Exactly. 00:00:25.239 --> 00:00:27.609 Maybe for a university rollout. So you run the 00:00:27.609 --> 00:00:29.910 Boolean searches, you comb through the databases, 00:00:30.050 --> 00:00:32.750 and finally, there it is, the exact perfect citation. 00:00:32.770 --> 00:00:35.469 And holy grail. The title aligns perfectly with 00:00:35.469 --> 00:00:38.409 your thesis. The abstract is practically screaming 00:00:38.409 --> 00:00:40.950 that it holds the precise data you need to make 00:00:40.950 --> 00:00:43.649 your case. Right. So you click the DOI link, 00:00:44.090 --> 00:00:47.280 fully expecting to download the PDF, and... You 00:00:47.280 --> 00:00:50.299 hit the wall. That paywall. The ubiquitous, incredibly 00:00:50.299 --> 00:00:52.859 frustrating academic paywall. You get that polite 00:00:52.859 --> 00:00:55.119 little pop -up from a publisher asking for $35 00:00:55.119 --> 00:00:57.880 or $50 just to rent the article for 24 hours. 00:00:57.899 --> 00:01:00.579 Just to rent it, yeah. If you operate anywhere 00:01:00.579 --> 00:01:02.939 in the academic or professional research space, 00:01:03.619 --> 00:01:05.560 you know exactly the friction I'm talking about. 00:01:05.760 --> 00:01:08.180 It completely derails your momentum. It absolutely 00:01:08.180 --> 00:01:11.140 does. But what happens when we look at the exact 00:01:11.140 --> 00:01:14.500 opposite end of that spectrum? What if the highest 00:01:14.500 --> 00:01:18.299 echelons of peer -reviewed research were entirely 00:01:18.299 --> 00:01:21.079 frictionless? Not just free for you to read, 00:01:21.519 --> 00:01:23.340 but completely free for the authors to publish 00:01:23.340 --> 00:01:25.680 in the first place. Which is a structural question 00:01:25.680 --> 00:01:28.459 that gets right to the heart of how modern academia 00:01:28.459 --> 00:01:31.239 functions, or honestly how it malfunctions. Right, 00:01:31.400 --> 00:01:34.159 okay, let's unpack this. Because today we are 00:01:34.159 --> 00:01:36.879 going on a deep dive into the foundational mechanics 00:01:36.879 --> 00:01:40.299 of how knowledge is actually disseminated when 00:01:40.299 --> 00:01:42.280 those barriers are completely removed. Yeah. 00:01:42.299 --> 00:01:45.140 And our source material today is it is a bit 00:01:45.140 --> 00:01:47.799 unconventional. It is. We are looking at a Wikipedia 00:01:47.799 --> 00:01:50.739 article. Specifically the entry outlining the 00:01:50.739 --> 00:01:53.060 publication details of the International Journal 00:01:53.060 --> 00:01:55.159 of Educational Technology in Higher Education. 00:01:55.260 --> 00:01:57.359 Which on the surface reading the metadata of 00:01:57.359 --> 00:02:00.000 an academic publishing journal might seem incredibly 00:02:00.000 --> 00:02:02.810 dry. Very dry. But if we connect this to the 00:02:02.810 --> 00:02:06.730 bigger picture, a journal's metadata, so its 00:02:06.730 --> 00:02:09.629 funding structure, its indexing, its editorial 00:02:09.629 --> 00:02:12.490 board, its publication frequency, it is essentially 00:02:12.490 --> 00:02:15.509 its DNA. It tells a profound story about the 00:02:15.509 --> 00:02:18.830 political economy of academic knowledge. This 00:02:18.830 --> 00:02:21.789 specific EdTech journal serves as a fascinating 00:02:21.789 --> 00:02:24.870 case study of a massive structural shift happening 00:02:24.870 --> 00:02:28.360 in higher education right now. Exactly. And that 00:02:28.360 --> 00:02:30.719 is the mission for this deep dive. We were taking 00:02:30.719 --> 00:02:33.180 this Wikipedia entry detailing the journal's 00:02:33.180 --> 00:02:35.099 history, its open access status, its indexing 00:02:35.099 --> 00:02:36.900 metrics, and we are going to reverse engineer 00:02:36.900 --> 00:02:38.979 it. We want to understand the machinery behind 00:02:38.979 --> 00:02:42.099 this specific publication. To grasp how top -tier 00:02:42.099 --> 00:02:44.639 educational technology research gets vetted and 00:02:44.639 --> 00:02:46.800 distributed globally. because whether you are 00:02:46.800 --> 00:02:49.199 prepping for a policy meeting, or you are an 00:02:49.199 --> 00:02:51.939 educator adapting to new tech, or if you just 00:02:51.939 --> 00:02:53.860 follow the debates about the privatization of 00:02:53.860 --> 00:02:56.000 research, understanding the architecture of a 00:02:56.000 --> 00:02:58.400 journal like this is a massive shortcut. It is 00:02:58.400 --> 00:03:00.520 a shortcut to being well informed. So let's start 00:03:00.520 --> 00:03:02.340 with the origins, because this publication has 00:03:02.340 --> 00:03:04.800 a distinct timeline. The source text notes it 00:03:04.800 --> 00:03:07.939 was established back in 2004. By the Open University 00:03:07.939 --> 00:03:11.409 of Catalonia. Right. But it didn't launch with 00:03:11.409 --> 00:03:14.090 the highly specific EdTech title it holds today. 00:03:14.610 --> 00:03:16.870 It was originally called the Universities and 00:03:16.870 --> 00:03:19.650 Knowledge Society Journal. Which is such an interesting 00:03:19.650 --> 00:03:22.610 title. It operated under that banner until 2016. 00:03:23.310 --> 00:03:25.650 That is when it underwent a substantial rebranding 00:03:25.650 --> 00:03:28.189 to its current name, the International Journal 00:03:28.189 --> 00:03:30.530 of Educational Technology and Higher Education, 00:03:31.129 --> 00:03:33.689 and simultaneously moved to Springer Science 00:03:33.689 --> 00:03:36.599 plus Business Media. I want to pause on that 00:03:36.599 --> 00:03:39.520 2004 origin for a second, because that initial 00:03:39.520 --> 00:03:41.460 title, The University's and Knowledge Society 00:03:41.460 --> 00:03:44.360 Journal, it is an artifact of a very specific 00:03:44.360 --> 00:03:46.800 era in academic thought. If you think back to 00:03:46.800 --> 00:03:49.419 the early 2000s, the discourse around the internet 00:03:49.419 --> 00:03:52.340 and education was heavily influenced by sociologists. 00:03:52.419 --> 00:03:55.080 Like Manuel Castells. Exactly, who incidentally 00:03:55.080 --> 00:03:57.740 is deeply tied to the Open University of Catalonia. 00:03:58.360 --> 00:04:00.419 The knowledge society or the network society 00:04:00.419 --> 00:04:04.360 was this broad sweeping sociological framework. 00:04:04.419 --> 00:04:06.750 Right. It was about how the fundamental nature 00:04:06.750 --> 00:04:09.849 of human interaction, economy and community was 00:04:09.849 --> 00:04:12.930 being reshaped by digital networks. So when a 00:04:12.930 --> 00:04:14.870 university launches a journal with that title 00:04:14.870 --> 00:04:18.550 in 2004, they are inviting submissions that are 00:04:18.550 --> 00:04:20.970 highly theoretical, very philosophical, looking 00:04:20.970 --> 00:04:23.750 at the macro level impact of digitization on 00:04:23.750 --> 00:04:25.850 the concept of the university itself. It feels 00:04:25.850 --> 00:04:28.410 very Web 2 .0, right? Yeah. It has that early 00:04:28.410 --> 00:04:30.709 Internet optimism. It is a massive umbrella. 00:04:30.829 --> 00:04:33.290 Like if I submit a paper to an all society journal 00:04:33.290 --> 00:04:36.579 in 2005. I could be writing about the cultural 00:04:36.579 --> 00:04:39.620 implications of open source software or the digital 00:04:39.620 --> 00:04:42.779 divide in rural communities Or just the philosophy 00:04:42.779 --> 00:04:45.839 of information scarcity. It is expansive. Yeah, 00:04:46.120 --> 00:04:49.519 but then you hit 2016 and they pivot to the International 00:04:49.519 --> 00:04:51.579 Journal of Educational Technology and Higher 00:04:51.579 --> 00:04:53.839 Education. That is a stark transition. To use 00:04:53.839 --> 00:04:55.959 an analogy, it is like a restaurant changing 00:04:55.959 --> 00:04:59.839 its name from Food and Society to... To the Molecular 00:04:59.839 --> 00:05:03.220 Gastronomy Institute. Yes. The first name suggests 00:05:03.220 --> 00:05:05.120 you are going to sit around discussing the history 00:05:05.120 --> 00:05:07.279 of agriculture and the cultural significance 00:05:07.279 --> 00:05:09.410 of bread. But the second name tells you exactly 00:05:09.410 --> 00:05:11.129 what is happening in the kitchen. You are getting 00:05:11.129 --> 00:05:14.310 liquid nitrogen, centrifuges, and highly technical 00:05:14.310 --> 00:05:18.310 applications. The 2016 rebrand signals a laser 00:05:18.310 --> 00:05:21.230 focus on the tools and the machinery of digital 00:05:21.230 --> 00:05:23.769 learning. That analogy captures the operational 00:05:23.769 --> 00:05:27.610 shift perfectly. By 2016, higher education had 00:05:27.610 --> 00:05:29.810 moved past the theoretical debate of whether 00:05:29.810 --> 00:05:32.509 a knowledge society existed. They were in the 00:05:32.509 --> 00:05:34.370 trenches of actually implementing it. Right. 00:05:34.470 --> 00:05:36.269 The market for learning management systems like 00:05:36.269 --> 00:05:39.199 Canvas and Blackboard had just exploded. Universities 00:05:39.199 --> 00:05:41.199 were dealing with the practical realities of 00:05:41.199 --> 00:05:43.439 synchronous versus asynchronous online learning. 00:05:43.759 --> 00:05:46.160 They were looking at data analytics, early adaptive 00:05:46.160 --> 00:05:48.660 learning algorithms. The journal's name change 00:05:48.660 --> 00:05:50.959 reflects a maturation of the field. They were 00:05:50.959 --> 00:05:53.800 signaling to researchers, we do not need broad 00:05:53.800 --> 00:05:56.139 philosophical essays anymore. Right. We need 00:05:56.139 --> 00:05:58.860 empirical data on how this specific software 00:05:58.860 --> 00:06:01.500 integration affects retention rates in undergraduate 00:06:01.500 --> 00:06:04.620 engineering programs. It is a total shift from 00:06:04.620 --> 00:06:08.040 sociology to applied technological science. But 00:06:08.040 --> 00:06:10.060 I want to push back a little here, or at least 00:06:10.060 --> 00:06:12.699 play devil's advocate. A name change is one thing. 00:06:12.920 --> 00:06:15.759 Journals rebrand all the time to taste trends 00:06:15.759 --> 00:06:18.779 or optimize for search algorithms. Sure. But 00:06:18.779 --> 00:06:22.439 the Wikipedia article links this 2016 name change 00:06:22.439 --> 00:06:25.160 directly to a transition to Springer. Springer 00:06:25.160 --> 00:06:27.899 Science plus business media, yes. That is not 00:06:27.899 --> 00:06:30.300 just a rebrand. That is an acquisition or at 00:06:30.300 --> 00:06:33.319 least a major strategic partnership. The Open 00:06:33.319 --> 00:06:36.160 University of Catalonia is respected, but Springer 00:06:36.160 --> 00:06:38.980 is an absolute behemoth in the academic publishing 00:06:38.980 --> 00:06:42.480 world. Moving under their umbrella completely 00:06:42.480 --> 00:06:44.879 changes the dynamic, does it not? It changes 00:06:44.879 --> 00:06:47.279 the dynamic entirely, and it is a fascinating 00:06:47.279 --> 00:06:50.079 strategic maneuver. When a journal is incubated 00:06:50.079 --> 00:06:52.740 at a single university, even an innovative one, 00:06:53.240 --> 00:06:55.759 it inherently has a ceiling on its administrative 00:06:55.759 --> 00:06:58.199 and distributive reach. Because the university 00:06:58.199 --> 00:07:00.259 press has to handle everything. Right. They handle 00:07:00.259 --> 00:07:02.860 the typesetting, the server hosting, the DOI 00:07:02.860 --> 00:07:05.899 minting, marketing, indexing applications. Moving 00:07:05.899 --> 00:07:08.120 to a global publisher like Springer provides 00:07:08.120 --> 00:07:11.019 an immediate, profound injection of infrastructural 00:07:11.019 --> 00:07:14.519 capital. And reach. Massive reach. Springer brings 00:07:14.519 --> 00:07:17.860 rigorous standardization, a globally recognized 00:07:17.860 --> 00:07:20.420 submission portal, and integration into their 00:07:20.420 --> 00:07:23.040 vast ecosystem of institutional subscriptions. 00:07:23.680 --> 00:07:26.800 It acts as an immense multiplier for the journal's 00:07:26.800 --> 00:07:29.379 prestige. OK, but here's where the friction usually 00:07:29.379 --> 00:07:32.600 comes in. Anyone who operates in academia knows 00:07:32.600 --> 00:07:35.240 that partnering with a giant like Springer usually 00:07:35.240 --> 00:07:38.079 comes with a massive catch. The paywall. The 00:07:38.079 --> 00:07:40.199 historical trade -off for that global infrastructure 00:07:40.199 --> 00:07:42.779 is that the publisher takes your peer -reviewed 00:07:42.779 --> 00:07:45.639 research, locks it behind their proprietary system, 00:07:46.139 --> 00:07:49.180 and charges university libraries exorbitant subscription 00:07:49.180 --> 00:07:52.379 fees to access it. The prestige is practically 00:07:52.379 --> 00:07:54.639 tied to exclusivity. That is the traditional 00:07:54.639 --> 00:07:56.740 model, yes. But the source text reveals that 00:07:56.740 --> 00:07:59.720 this journal managed to secure Springer's infrastructure 00:07:59.720 --> 00:08:02.720 while doing the exact opposite regarding access. 00:08:03.259 --> 00:08:05.300 And that leads us to the most critical structural 00:08:05.300 --> 00:08:07.319 component mentioned in the article. The journal 00:08:07.319 --> 00:08:09.560 operates on a diamond open access model. This 00:08:09.560 --> 00:08:12.480 is the crux of why this journal is so noteworthy. 00:08:12.899 --> 00:08:15.800 The funding model of a journal dictates its politics, 00:08:16.040 --> 00:08:19.100 its reach, and its equity. The Wikipedia entry 00:08:19.100 --> 00:08:21.920 explicitly defines the status, stating that, 00:08:22.079 --> 00:08:24.519 as a diamond open access journal, authors do 00:08:24.519 --> 00:08:26.500 not need to pay an article processing charge, 00:08:26.579 --> 00:08:29.899 or APC. Which is huge. To understand why this 00:08:29.899 --> 00:08:32.259 is such a radical departure from the norm, we 00:08:32.259 --> 00:08:34.740 really had to contextualize it within the broader 00:08:34.740 --> 00:08:38.019 open access movement. For a long time, the traditional 00:08:38.019 --> 00:08:40.799 model was reader pays. Right. The researcher 00:08:40.799 --> 00:08:43.039 does the work, reviewers review it for free, 00:08:43.200 --> 00:08:46.059 the publisher claims the copyright, and the reader 00:08:46.059 --> 00:08:48.840 pays to view it. which naturally sparked massive 00:08:48.840 --> 00:08:51.500 backlash from researchers who realized public 00:08:51.500 --> 00:08:53.820 grant money was funding research that the public 00:08:53.820 --> 00:08:56.740 could not even read. Open Access was supposed 00:08:56.740 --> 00:08:58.879 to fix that. Exactly. The Open Access movement 00:08:58.879 --> 00:09:01.980 aimed to tear down the paywalls. But the publishing 00:09:01.980 --> 00:09:04.940 infrastructure still costs money. Servers, copy 00:09:04.940 --> 00:09:07.259 editors, permanent digital archiving, editorial 00:09:07.259 --> 00:09:09.799 management systems, none of that is free. So 00:09:09.799 --> 00:09:12.659 who pays? Well, the industry predominantly shifted 00:09:12.659 --> 00:09:15.679 to what is known as gold open access. In the 00:09:15.679 --> 00:09:18.059 gold model, the paywall is removed for the reader, 00:09:18.240 --> 00:09:20.100 which is great for the dissemination of knowledge. 00:09:20.320 --> 00:09:22.809 But the cost is shifted to the author. Before 00:09:22.809 --> 00:09:25.190 the article is published, the author or their 00:09:25.190 --> 00:09:28.230 institution must pay an article processing charge, 00:09:28.549 --> 00:09:32.110 the APC. And these are not nominal fees. For 00:09:32.110 --> 00:09:35.009 top tier journals, APCs can range from $3 ,000 00:09:35.009 --> 00:09:38.389 to sometimes over $10 ,000 per article. Which 00:09:38.389 --> 00:09:41.889 creates an entirely new, arguably much worse, 00:09:42.210 --> 00:09:44.549 layer of inequity. I mean, think about the field 00:09:44.549 --> 00:09:47.509 of educational technology specifically. If you 00:09:47.509 --> 00:09:50.830 have a gold open access model with a $4 ,000 00:09:50.830 --> 00:09:54.340 APC, You are essentially gatekeeping the conversation. 00:09:54.440 --> 00:09:57.080 You are. A well -funded researcher at Stanford 00:09:57.080 --> 00:10:00.360 or MIT, backed by massive institutional grants, 00:10:00.879 --> 00:10:03.100 can easily afford to publish their findings on 00:10:03.100 --> 00:10:06.389 the latest VR integration. but a brilliant researcher 00:10:06.389 --> 00:10:08.769 at a community college in the Midwest. Or a professor 00:10:08.769 --> 00:10:10.889 at an underfunded university in the global south. 00:10:11.149 --> 00:10:13.350 Exactly. Someone who has developed an incredible 00:10:13.350 --> 00:10:16.029 low -bandwidth mobile learning strategy. They 00:10:16.029 --> 00:10:17.570 get completely shut out, they have the data, 00:10:17.750 --> 00:10:19.570 they have the peer -reviewed rigor, but they 00:10:19.570 --> 00:10:21.629 literally cannot afford the entrance fee to share 00:10:21.629 --> 00:10:24.389 it. That is the insidious nature of the APC model. 00:10:24.620 --> 00:10:28.220 It silences researchers based on funding rather 00:10:28.220 --> 00:10:31.080 than merit. And this is why the diamond model, 00:10:31.120 --> 00:10:34.179 which this journal utilizes, is so crucial. So 00:10:34.179 --> 00:10:36.759 diamond means neither pays. Diamond Open Access 00:10:36.759 --> 00:10:38.860 completely removes the financial transaction 00:10:38.860 --> 00:10:41.000 from the individual researcher and the individual 00:10:41.000 --> 00:10:43.539 reader. The financial burden of the publishing 00:10:43.539 --> 00:10:46.600 infrastructure is instead absorbed by institutional 00:10:46.600 --> 00:10:50.120 subsidies, university consortiums, or philanthropic 00:10:50.120 --> 00:10:52.740 grants. In this case, it is maintained through 00:10:52.740 --> 00:10:54.529 the backing of its founding institution. like 00:10:54.529 --> 00:10:57.049 the Open University of Catalonia and its partners, 00:10:57.629 --> 00:10:59.970 even while utilizing Springer's platform. I have 00:10:59.970 --> 00:11:01.549 to press you on the economics of that, though. 00:11:01.929 --> 00:11:05.070 Springer is a massive, publicly traded, for -profit 00:11:05.070 --> 00:11:07.210 entity. They do not operate charities. Sure, 00:11:07.409 --> 00:11:09.429 they do not. If they are providing the servers, 00:11:09.649 --> 00:11:11.470 the formatting, the global distribution networks, 00:11:11.610 --> 00:11:14.389 and the indexing management, and they are not 00:11:14.389 --> 00:11:17.370 charging the reader a subscription fee, and they 00:11:17.370 --> 00:11:20.789 are not charging the author an EPC, How is this 00:11:20.789 --> 00:11:22.970 actually sustainable? Is Springer just using 00:11:22.970 --> 00:11:25.230 journals like this as loss leaders for prestige, 00:11:25.509 --> 00:11:27.570 or are the partner universities writing massive 00:11:27.570 --> 00:11:30.419 checks behind the scenes? It is almost certainly 00:11:30.419 --> 00:11:33.000 the latter, structured through complex institutional 00:11:33.000 --> 00:11:35.919 agreements. Universities and research consortiums 00:11:35.919 --> 00:11:38.440 are increasingly realizing that paying a publisher 00:11:38.440 --> 00:11:42.220 a negotiated lump -sum subsidy to host a diamond 00:11:42.220 --> 00:11:45.200 open access journal is actually more cost effective. 00:11:45.279 --> 00:11:47.559 Cost effective for the academic community globally. 00:11:47.659 --> 00:11:50.960 Yes. It is better than having thousands of individual 00:11:50.960 --> 00:11:53.879 researchers constantly bleeding grant money to 00:11:53.879 --> 00:11:57.039 pay individual ATCs. It is a pooling of resources. 00:11:57.159 --> 00:11:59.269 That makes total sense. The institutions fund 00:11:59.269 --> 00:12:01.549 the journal's operational costs collectively, 00:12:02.049 --> 00:12:04.350 allowing Springer to cover its overhead and profit 00:12:04.350 --> 00:12:06.769 margins, while the end user, both the author 00:12:06.769 --> 00:12:09.649 and the reader, experiences a completely frictionless 00:12:09.649 --> 00:12:13.269 environment. It requires a deep, long -term financial 00:12:13.269 --> 00:12:15.789 commitment from the editorial institutions. It 00:12:15.789 --> 00:12:19.230 is institutional heavy lifting to ensure individual 00:12:19.230 --> 00:12:22.529 freedom. And that freedom extends beyond just 00:12:22.529 --> 00:12:25.169 reading the text. The Wikipedia article notes 00:12:25.169 --> 00:12:28.019 another critical layer of metadata. The journal 00:12:28.019 --> 00:12:30.399 operates under a Creative Commons Attribution 00:12:30.399 --> 00:12:34.759 License 4 .0. Generally known as CCBY 4 .0. Right. 00:12:35.019 --> 00:12:37.679 Now for anyone in academia, you see CCBY licenses 00:12:37.679 --> 00:12:40.759 all the time. But the specific implications of 00:12:40.759 --> 00:12:44.240 the 4 .0 Attribution License are incredibly powerful 00:12:44.240 --> 00:12:46.340 when applied to the EdTech sector. It is the 00:12:46.340 --> 00:12:49.000 most accommodating and permissive license available 00:12:49.000 --> 00:12:51.220 within the academic sphere that still retains 00:12:51.220 --> 00:12:54.110 the requirement for scholarly attribution. Under 00:12:54.110 --> 00:12:56.549 traditional copyright, if an educator reads a 00:12:56.549 --> 00:12:59.049 published paper and wants to use a highly effective 00:12:59.049 --> 00:13:01.769 diagram or a specific pedagogical framework in 00:13:01.769 --> 00:13:04.090 a textbook they're writing, they often have to 00:13:04.090 --> 00:13:06.490 navigate a labyrinth of permissions. Sometimes 00:13:06.490 --> 00:13:08.870 paying royalties to the publisher. Exactly. Or 00:13:08.870 --> 00:13:11.210 think about the commercial side. If an EdTech 00:13:11.210 --> 00:13:13.389 startup reads a study proving that a certain 00:13:13.389 --> 00:13:16.570 UI layout increases student retention by 20%, 00:13:16.570 --> 00:13:19.029 they might hesitate to integrate those exam findings 00:13:19.029 --> 00:13:21.230 into their commercial software. They would be 00:13:21.230 --> 00:13:23.909 terrified of intellectual property litigation. 00:13:24.370 --> 00:13:28.730 But CCBY 4 .0 explicitly removes that anxiety. 00:13:29.289 --> 00:13:31.970 It means anyone can take the material, share 00:13:31.970 --> 00:13:34.750 it, copy it, distribute it, and most importantly 00:13:34.750 --> 00:13:37.549 adapt or remix it. You can build upon the research 00:13:37.549 --> 00:13:40.090 for any purpose. Including commercial purposes. 00:13:40.570 --> 00:13:43.190 Yeah. The only stipulation, the BY and the license, 00:13:43.529 --> 00:13:45.870 is that you must provide appropriate credit link 00:13:45.870 --> 00:13:48.070 to the license, and indicate if changes were 00:13:48.070 --> 00:13:50.470 made. Which is a profound philosophical statement 00:13:50.470 --> 00:13:53.570 by the journal's leadership. By choosing CC -BY 00:13:53.570 --> 00:13:56.330 4 .0, they're explicitly stating that educational 00:13:56.330 --> 00:13:58.970 technology research should not be siloed in theoretical 00:13:58.970 --> 00:14:01.889 vacuums. The ultimate goal of EdTech is practical 00:14:01.889 --> 00:14:04.289 implementation. They want software developers, 00:14:04.570 --> 00:14:06.490 instructional designers, university administrators, 00:14:06.690 --> 00:14:08.450 and commercial vendors to take this research 00:14:08.450 --> 00:14:10.809 and build real -world tools with it immediately. 00:14:11.169 --> 00:14:14.269 It maximizes the utility of the knowledge. And 00:14:14.269 --> 00:14:16.889 that concept of utility and immediacy provides 00:14:16.889 --> 00:14:19.230 a perfect bridge to the next major section of 00:14:19.230 --> 00:14:22.169 the source material. Because being free and legally 00:14:22.169 --> 00:14:24.769 permissive does not matter if the research is 00:14:24.769 --> 00:14:27.769 stale by the time it reaches the public. The 00:14:27.769 --> 00:14:30.929 Wikipedia entry details two key logistical elements. 00:14:31.730 --> 00:14:34.129 First, it states the journal's publication frequency 00:14:34.129 --> 00:14:38.190 is continuous. Second, it provides a very specific 00:14:38.190 --> 00:14:41.110 list of databases where the journal is abstracted 00:14:41.110 --> 00:14:43.809 and indexed. Let's start with the publishing 00:14:43.809 --> 00:14:46.909 cadence. What does continuous actually mean in 00:14:46.909 --> 00:14:50.950 contrast to legacy academic publishing? To appreciate 00:14:50.950 --> 00:14:52.830 the continuous model, you really have to look 00:14:52.830 --> 00:14:55.929 at the legacy architecture it replaces. Historically, 00:14:56.110 --> 00:14:58.750 the print -based academic world operated on an 00:14:58.750 --> 00:15:00.750 issue -based model. You had the spring volume 00:15:00.750 --> 00:15:03.590 and the fall volume. Precisely. If a team of 00:15:03.590 --> 00:15:06.350 researchers concluded a study in February and 00:15:06.350 --> 00:15:08.610 the manuscripts successfully passed the gauntlet 00:15:08.610 --> 00:15:11.570 of peer review and revisions by April, they might 00:15:11.570 --> 00:15:13.830 still be forced to wait until October. Just to 00:15:13.830 --> 00:15:15.850 get bundled. Just for the publisher to bundle 00:15:15.850 --> 00:15:17.990 their article with ten others, print the physical 00:15:17.990 --> 00:15:20.250 journals and ship them to universities. libraries. 00:15:20.850 --> 00:15:23.269 The knowledge essentially sat in a holding pattern 00:15:23.269 --> 00:15:25.389 for half a year just to satisfy a logistical 00:15:25.389 --> 00:15:28.309 printing schedule. Which, in the context of educational 00:15:28.309 --> 00:15:31.929 technology, is an absolute eternity. If we were 00:15:31.929 --> 00:15:33.990 talking about a journal of classical antiquity, 00:15:34.470 --> 00:15:37.889 a six -month delay is irrelevant. A new analysis 00:15:37.889 --> 00:15:40.309 of Roman aqueducts will be just as valid in October 00:15:40.309 --> 00:15:43.090 as it was in April. True. But EdTech moves at 00:15:43.090 --> 00:15:46.419 the speed of the software industry. If a researcher 00:15:46.419 --> 00:15:49.039 completes a rigorous study on how a specific 00:15:49.039 --> 00:15:52.299 generative AI tool hallucinates during organic 00:15:52.299 --> 00:15:55.480 chemistry exams, that is mission -critical data 00:15:55.480 --> 00:15:57.860 for professors setting their syllabi for the 00:15:57.860 --> 00:15:59.980 next semester. It needs to be out there. If that 00:15:59.980 --> 00:16:02.200 paper sits in a publisher's queue for six months, 00:16:03.059 --> 00:16:05.539 the AI model has already been updated three times. 00:16:05.759 --> 00:16:08.360 The research might be functionally obsolete before 00:16:08.360 --> 00:16:10.120 it even sees the light of day. The continuous 00:16:10.120 --> 00:16:12.500 publication frequency is an acknowledgement that 00:16:12.500 --> 00:16:15.000 the traditional print model is a massive detriment 00:16:15.000 --> 00:16:18.220 to fast -moving scientific fields. In a continuous 00:16:18.220 --> 00:16:21.320 model, the concept of the issue is largely relegated 00:16:21.320 --> 00:16:23.220 to an organizational afterthought. So how does 00:16:23.220 --> 00:16:26.110 it work? The moment an article clears peer review, 00:16:26.450 --> 00:16:28.850 completes its copy editing, and is assigned a 00:16:28.850 --> 00:16:31.629 DOI, it is immediately published online as a 00:16:31.629 --> 00:16:34.929 standalone entity. It enters the academic bloodstream 00:16:34.929 --> 00:16:38.169 instantly. This requires a much more agile editorial 00:16:38.169 --> 00:16:41.509 workflow, but it honors the velocity of the technological 00:16:41.509 --> 00:16:43.610 change they are studying. Now, I can hear the 00:16:43.610 --> 00:16:46.269 skeptics arguing that continuous publication 00:16:46.269 --> 00:16:49.179 might incentivize a drop in quality. that it 00:16:49.179 --> 00:16:51.820 creates a content mill where peer review is rushed 00:16:51.820 --> 00:16:54.539 just to keep the feed populated. That is a common 00:16:54.539 --> 00:16:56.440 critique of agile publishing. But the second 00:16:56.440 --> 00:16:58.820 logistical element in the source text completely 00:16:58.820 --> 00:17:01.700 dismantles that argument. The journal's indexing 00:17:01.700 --> 00:17:04.720 profile is fiercely guarded. The Wikipedia article 00:17:04.720 --> 00:17:06.839 lists several major databases where this journal 00:17:06.839 --> 00:17:10.140 is abstracted and indexed, including eBusco databases, 00:17:10.579 --> 00:17:13.500 Scopus, Current Content, slash Social and Behavioral 00:17:13.500 --> 00:17:15.680 Sciences, the Social Sciences Citation Index, 00:17:16.180 --> 00:17:19.539 and MIR. that is a very robust list. So layperson, 00:17:19.759 --> 00:17:21.819 that is just alphabet soup. But in the academic 00:17:21.819 --> 00:17:24.779 ecosystem, being indexed in these specific databases 00:17:24.779 --> 00:17:27.579 is the ultimate proof of rigorous quality control, 00:17:27.660 --> 00:17:30.180 right? Indexing is essentially the circulatory 00:17:30.180 --> 00:17:33.990 system of global academic discovery. When researchers 00:17:33.990 --> 00:17:36.289 or students at a university use their library 00:17:36.289 --> 00:17:38.450 portal to search for literature, they are not 00:17:38.450 --> 00:17:40.769 using an open web search engine. They are querying 00:17:40.769 --> 00:17:45.410 these curated databases. Scopus, managed by Elsevier, 00:17:45.769 --> 00:17:48.250 and the Web of Science indices, managed by Clarivate, 00:17:48.470 --> 00:17:50.589 which includes the Social Sciences, Citation 00:17:50.589 --> 00:17:53.230 Index, and Current Contents. Those are the gold 00:17:53.230 --> 00:17:56.210 standards. These databases do not automatically 00:17:56.210 --> 00:17:58.589 crawl and index every journal on the internet. 00:17:58.710 --> 00:18:01.099 They're gated. They have incredibly stringent 00:18:01.099 --> 00:18:03.900 inclusion criteria. They audit a journal's peer 00:18:03.900 --> 00:18:06.539 review transparency, the geographic diversity 00:18:06.539 --> 00:18:09.680 of its authors, its citation metrics, and its 00:18:09.680 --> 00:18:12.519 adherence to publication ethics before they even 00:18:12.519 --> 00:18:15.119 agree to index it. So just to be clear, Springer 00:18:15.119 --> 00:18:17.220 cannot just call up Scopus and say, hey, we bought 00:18:17.220 --> 00:18:20.099 this new journal. Put it in your database. The 00:18:20.099 --> 00:18:23.559 journal itself has to continually prove its academic 00:18:23.559 --> 00:18:26.500 rigor to maintain its placement in those search 00:18:26.500 --> 00:18:29.839 engines. Exactly. Inclusion. in the Social Sciences 00:18:29.839 --> 00:18:32.380 Citation Index means the journal is recognized 00:18:32.380 --> 00:18:35.420 as producing highly consequential, heavily cited 00:18:35.420 --> 00:18:38.140 research within its discipline. If the continuous 00:18:38.140 --> 00:18:40.839 publication model resulted in sloppy, rushed 00:18:40.839 --> 00:18:43.740 peer review, the journal's citation rates would 00:18:43.740 --> 00:18:46.140 plummet and they would risk being de -indexed 00:18:46.140 --> 00:18:48.720 by Clarivate or Scopus. It is an active filter. 00:18:48.980 --> 00:18:51.759 The indexing serves as a relentless, subjective 00:18:51.759 --> 00:18:54.980 quality assurance mechanism. But looking at that 00:18:54.980 --> 00:18:57.619 list of databases, there's one name that absolutely 00:18:57.619 --> 00:19:00.779 jumps out if you know the landscape. And it highlights 00:19:00.779 --> 00:19:03.099 just how broad the field of digital learning 00:19:03.099 --> 00:19:06.740 has become. The source explicitly lists HindOnline 00:19:06.740 --> 00:19:08.640 as one of the databases where the journal is 00:19:08.640 --> 00:19:11.319 abstracted and indexed. MindOnline, yeah. EBS 00:19:11.319 --> 00:19:13.640 Go and Scopus make total sense for an EdTech 00:19:13.640 --> 00:19:16.059 journal. But HeinOnline is fundamentally known 00:19:16.059 --> 00:19:18.579 as a premier legal and governmental database. 00:19:19.299 --> 00:19:21.480 It is the platform lawyers, legal scholars and 00:19:21.480 --> 00:19:23.980 policymakers use to pull case law, international 00:19:23.980 --> 00:19:26.000 treaties and jurisprudence journals. It is the 00:19:26.000 --> 00:19:28.480 legal gold standard. Why is a journal focused 00:19:28.480 --> 00:19:31.000 on educational technology being heavily indexed 00:19:31.000 --> 00:19:33.099 in a database designed for the legal profession? 00:19:33.460 --> 00:19:35.980 That is perhaps the most revealing piece of metadata 00:19:35.980 --> 00:19:39.079 in the entire article. It requires us to extrapolate 00:19:39.079 --> 00:19:41.740 on the real -world implications of digital learning. 00:19:42.039 --> 00:19:44.839 The presence of this journal in HeinOnline strongly 00:19:44.839 --> 00:19:47.460 suggests that the research it publishes frequently 00:19:47.460 --> 00:19:50.799 intersects with profound legal, regulatory, and 00:19:50.799 --> 00:19:53.380 policy issues. It is not just about iPads in 00:19:53.380 --> 00:19:55.440 the classroom anymore. Educational technology 00:19:55.440 --> 00:19:57.960 is no longer just about whether a tablet app 00:19:57.960 --> 00:20:01.140 helps third graders learn fractions. It is about 00:20:01.140 --> 00:20:04.660 massive systemic infrastructure. Think about 00:20:04.660 --> 00:20:07.480 what happens when a university mandates a new 00:20:07.480 --> 00:20:11.059 cloud -based learning management system or requires 00:20:11.059 --> 00:20:13.880 students to use AI -driven proctoring software 00:20:13.880 --> 00:20:16.279 to take exams from their bedrooms. Oh, the legal 00:20:16.279 --> 00:20:18.460 ramifications are staggering. You're immediately 00:20:18.460 --> 00:20:21.380 crashing into data privacy laws. If a university 00:20:21.380 --> 00:20:23.880 uses a proctoring software that records a student's 00:20:23.880 --> 00:20:26.339 eye movements and scans their bedroom for unauthorized 00:20:26.339 --> 00:20:28.720 materials, you are dealing with potential Fourth 00:20:28.720 --> 00:20:31.420 Amendment issues in the U .S. or severe GDPR 00:20:31.420 --> 00:20:34.039 compliance issues in Europe. Who owns the biometric 00:20:34.039 --> 00:20:36.859 data being collected? If a professor uploads 00:20:36.859 --> 00:20:39.519 their entire curriculum to a third party corporate 00:20:39.519 --> 00:20:42.200 server who holds the intellectual property rights 00:20:42.200 --> 00:20:45.599 to those lectures, if a university adopts a digital 00:20:45.599 --> 00:20:47.779 courseware platform that isn't fully accessible 00:20:47.779 --> 00:20:50.579 to visually impaired students, they are instantly 00:20:50.579 --> 00:20:53.599 exposed to massive civil rights litigation. Precisely. 00:20:53.740 --> 00:20:56.259 The researchers publishing in the International 00:20:56.259 --> 00:20:58.339 Journal of Educational Technology and Higher 00:20:58.339 --> 00:21:02.019 Education are clearly analyzing these exact friction 00:21:02.019 --> 00:21:04.779 points. They are studying algorithmic bias in 00:21:04.779 --> 00:21:07.259 automated grading systems, the surveillance ethics 00:21:07.259 --> 00:21:10.440 of campus Wi -Fi tracking, and the data sovereignty 00:21:10.440 --> 00:21:12.720 issues of international online learning. That 00:21:12.720 --> 00:21:15.400 makes so much sense. This research is so empirically 00:21:15.400 --> 00:21:18.160 robust and policy relevant that legal scholars 00:21:18.160 --> 00:21:21.160 researching education law and policymakers drafting 00:21:21.160 --> 00:21:23.609 new regulations for data privacy act... require 00:21:23.609 --> 00:21:26.549 access to it. HeinOnline indexes the journal 00:21:26.549 --> 00:21:29.369 because EdTech is fundamentally a legal and policy 00:21:29.369 --> 00:21:31.630 frontier as much as it is a pedagogical one. 00:21:32.230 --> 00:21:33.990 That drastically changes how you view the journal. 00:21:34.490 --> 00:21:37.329 It is not cordoned off in some niche pedagogical 00:21:37.329 --> 00:21:41.029 silo. It is actively informing the broader legal 00:21:41.029 --> 00:21:44.670 and social sciences discourse. It is dopely interdisciplinary. 00:21:44.869 --> 00:21:47.750 Now to pull off that level of multidisciplinary 00:21:47.750 --> 00:21:50.789 relevance, while maintaining continuous publication, 00:21:50.890 --> 00:21:53.349 navigating the rigorous standards of Scopus and 00:21:53.349 --> 00:21:56.230 the Web of Science, and defending a diamond open 00:21:56.230 --> 00:22:00.019 access funding model, That requires serious operational 00:22:00.019 --> 00:22:02.759 leadership. You do not achieve that kind of infrastructural 00:22:02.759 --> 00:22:05.099 harmony on autopilot. No, you do not. And that 00:22:05.099 --> 00:22:07.220 brings us to the final major section of our analysis, 00:22:07.700 --> 00:22:10.160 the global leadership and the empirical impact 00:22:10.160 --> 00:22:12.299 of the journal. The structure of a journal's 00:22:12.299 --> 00:22:14.640 editorial board is often highly indicative of 00:22:14.640 --> 00:22:17.359 its strategic vision, and frankly, its epistemological 00:22:17.359 --> 00:22:20.140 blind spots. The Wikipedia source provides the 00:22:20.140 --> 00:22:22.480 names and institutional affiliations of the current 00:22:22.480 --> 00:22:25.220 editors -in -chief, and the geographic distribution 00:22:25.220 --> 00:22:27.799 is intentional and highly significant. Let's 00:22:27.799 --> 00:22:30.259 hear it. The leadership includes Joseph M. Dort, 00:22:30.589 --> 00:22:33.230 from the Universitat Oberta de Catalunya in Spain, 00:22:33.430 --> 00:22:36.309 where the journal originated. It includes Alvaro 00:22:36.309 --> 00:22:38.869 Galviz from the Universidad de los Andes in Colombia. 00:22:39.630 --> 00:22:42.509 We see Miread Nikjola -McHill from Dublin City 00:22:42.509 --> 00:22:44.930 University in Ireland and Irina Valenjevicina 00:22:44.930 --> 00:22:47.569 from Vaitat Asmagnus University in Lithuania. 00:22:47.900 --> 00:22:50.079 Anyone who reads academic literature regularly 00:22:50.079 --> 00:22:52.720 knows how rare that kind of spread actually is. 00:22:53.319 --> 00:22:55.799 In so many top -tier journals, especially those 00:22:55.799 --> 00:22:58.279 published by massive Western European or American 00:22:58.279 --> 00:23:01.119 conglomerates, the editorial board is essentially 00:23:01.119 --> 00:23:03.900 an echo chamber. It is entirely homogenized. 00:23:04.019 --> 00:23:06.420 You will see a board entirely composed of researchers 00:23:06.420 --> 00:23:09.500 from the Ivy League, Stanford, Oxford, and Cambridge. 00:23:10.000 --> 00:23:12.519 And the problem with that is if your entire leadership 00:23:12.519 --> 00:23:15.640 team operates within the exact same socioeconomic 00:23:15.640 --> 00:23:18.230 and infrastructural reality, they're going to 00:23:18.230 --> 00:23:21.049 unconsciously prioritize research that speaks 00:23:21.049 --> 00:23:23.630 to that specific reality. That is the ultimate 00:23:23.630 --> 00:23:26.890 danger of provincialism in academia. If an editorial 00:23:26.890 --> 00:23:29.509 board only consists of professors from elite, 00:23:29.910 --> 00:23:33.480 extraordinarily wealthy institutions where Every 00:23:33.480 --> 00:23:36.759 student has a brand new laptop and gigabit internet 00:23:36.759 --> 00:23:39.740 access. Their baseline assumptions about what 00:23:39.740 --> 00:23:43.160 constitutes useful ed tech research will be heavily 00:23:43.160 --> 00:23:45.299 skewed. They won't see the value in anything 00:23:45.299 --> 00:23:48.240 else. They might consistently reject perfectly 00:23:48.240 --> 00:23:50.960 rigorous research on mobile first distance learning 00:23:50.960 --> 00:23:53.619 in low bandwidth environments because it doesn't 00:23:53.619 --> 00:23:55.859 align with their technological paradigm. They 00:23:55.859 --> 00:23:58.519 might view it as niche when in reality it reflects 00:23:58.519 --> 00:24:00.579 the learning conditions of a massive percentage 00:24:00.579 --> 00:24:03.180 of the global student population. Exactly. So 00:24:03.180 --> 00:24:05.440 by actively structuring their leadership to span 00:24:05.440 --> 00:24:08.539 Spain, Colombia, Ireland, and Lithuania, they're 00:24:08.539 --> 00:24:10.619 building a firewall against that specific type 00:24:10.619 --> 00:24:13.440 of bias. The way digital technology is implemented 00:24:13.440 --> 00:24:15.960 in Bogota is influenced by different governmental 00:24:15.960 --> 00:24:18.319 policies, funding models, and cultural attitudes 00:24:18.319 --> 00:24:20.720 than the way it is implemented in Kaunas or Dublin. 00:24:20.960 --> 00:24:22.960 It is contextual. A researcher submitting a paper 00:24:22.960 --> 00:24:25.519 from a developing educational market knows that 00:24:25.519 --> 00:24:27.579 there is someone at the very top of the editorial 00:24:27.579 --> 00:24:30.700 chain who understands the context of their research. 00:24:31.240 --> 00:24:33.299 It ensures the journal actually lives up to the 00:24:33.299 --> 00:24:35.859 word international in its title rather than just 00:24:35.859 --> 00:24:38.720 being a mouthpiece for Western elite institutions. 00:24:39.039 --> 00:24:41.809 It guarantees a plurality of perspectives during 00:24:41.809 --> 00:24:44.569 the peer review assignment process. And we have 00:24:44.569 --> 00:24:47.089 concrete empirical evidence within the source 00:24:47.089 --> 00:24:49.869 text that this strategy of combining geographic 00:24:49.869 --> 00:24:52.390 diversity, diamond open access, and rigorous 00:24:52.390 --> 00:24:55.630 indexing is yielding extraordinary results. The 00:24:55.630 --> 00:24:58.029 Impact Factor. The Wikipedia article concludes 00:24:58.029 --> 00:25:00.869 its primary data points with a highly consequential 00:25:00.869 --> 00:25:03.529 metric. According to the Journal Citation Reports, 00:25:03.890 --> 00:25:07.990 the journal has a 2021 impact factor of 7 .611. 00:25:08.309 --> 00:25:10.450 Let's really dig into that number. Because we 00:25:10.450 --> 00:25:12.589 know you understand the basic premise of an impact 00:25:12.589 --> 00:25:14.930 factor. It is the average number of citations 00:25:14.930 --> 00:25:18.269 per article in a given year. But we need to contextualize 00:25:18.269 --> 00:25:21.849 just how much of an anomaly a 7 .611 is in this 00:25:21.849 --> 00:25:24.390 specific scenario. It is an outlier in the best 00:25:24.390 --> 00:25:27.109 way. In the academic world, the impact factor 00:25:27.109 --> 00:25:30.029 is like your box office gross or your Spotify 00:25:30.029 --> 00:25:33.009 monthly listeners. If you are working in molecular 00:25:33.009 --> 00:25:36.109 biology or clinical oncology, an impact factor 00:25:36.109 --> 00:25:38.500 of seven might be considered mid -tier. because 00:25:38.500 --> 00:25:40.660 papers in those fields are citing dozens of lab 00:25:40.660 --> 00:25:43.019 results every week. The turnover is incredibly 00:25:43.019 --> 00:25:45.700 fast. But in the social sciences, education and 00:25:45.700 --> 00:25:48.259 educational technology, citation velocity is 00:25:48.259 --> 00:25:51.079 much slower and more deliberate. Achieving an 00:25:51.079 --> 00:25:54.920 impact factor of 7 .611 places a journal in the 00:25:54.920 --> 00:25:57.640 absolute upper echelon, usually the top tenth 00:25:57.640 --> 00:26:00.970 percentile, of its discipline. It is elite status. 00:26:01.230 --> 00:26:03.349 It means that on average, every single paper 00:26:03.349 --> 00:26:05.849 they publish is being used as the foundational 00:26:05.849 --> 00:26:08.470 building block for over seven new pieces of peer 00:26:08.470 --> 00:26:10.589 -reviewed research shortly after publication. 00:26:10.710 --> 00:26:13.069 It is a staggering metric for the field, and 00:26:13.069 --> 00:26:15.589 it completely disrupts a very stubborn, cynical 00:26:15.589 --> 00:26:17.789 narrative that has plagued the open access movement 00:26:17.789 --> 00:26:20.690 for over a decade. For years, legacy publishers 00:26:20.690 --> 00:26:23.769 and traditionalists argued that APCs and paywalls 00:26:23.769 --> 00:26:26.369 were necessary proxies for quality. They equated 00:26:26.369 --> 00:26:29.180 expense with rigor. Exactly. The assumption was 00:26:29.180 --> 00:26:31.819 that if a journal was free to publish in, it 00:26:31.819 --> 00:26:35.059 must be a predatory journal, a content mill with 00:26:35.059 --> 00:26:37.380 low standards that would publish anything just 00:26:37.380 --> 00:26:40.519 to generate volume. The prevailing myth was that 00:26:40.519 --> 00:26:43.819 high academic rigor inherently required high 00:26:43.819 --> 00:26:46.680 financial barriers. But the data says otherwise. 00:26:47.180 --> 00:26:51.019 The 7 .611 impact factor of this journal empirically 00:26:51.019 --> 00:26:53.720 dismantles that myth. It does not just dismantle 00:26:53.720 --> 00:26:57.190 it. It arguably proves the exact inverse. You 00:26:57.190 --> 00:26:59.849 can make a very strong case that the Dyme Open 00:26:59.849 --> 00:27:02.910 Access model is precisely why the impact factor 00:27:02.910 --> 00:27:05.529 is so incredibly high. Think about the mechanics 00:27:05.529 --> 00:27:07.710 of citation. Right. Who can actually read the 00:27:07.710 --> 00:27:10.390 paper? If I publish a brilliant paradigm -shifting 00:27:10.390 --> 00:27:12.769 paper on AI grading bias, but I publish it in 00:27:12.769 --> 00:27:14.970 a traditional closed journal, the only people 00:27:14.970 --> 00:27:17.490 who can read it and therefore cite it are researchers 00:27:17.490 --> 00:27:20.609 whose universities pay $50 ,000 a year for that 00:27:20.609 --> 00:27:23.289 specific database bundle. Your audience is severely 00:27:23.289 --> 00:27:26.279 restricted. My potential audience is artificially 00:27:26.279 --> 00:27:29.400 capped by institutional wealth. But if I publish 00:27:29.400 --> 00:27:31.720 that exact same paper in the International Journal 00:27:31.720 --> 00:27:34.000 of Educational Technology and Higher Education, 00:27:34.819 --> 00:27:37.200 every single researcher on the planet with an 00:27:37.200 --> 00:27:39.259 internet connection can download it instantly. 00:27:39.500 --> 00:27:41.660 The friction is removed, maximizing the surface 00:27:41.660 --> 00:27:44.880 area for discovery. Furthermore, because it utilizes 00:27:44.880 --> 00:27:48.960 the CC BY 4 .0 license, researchers don't just 00:27:48.960 --> 00:27:51.740 read it. They feel legally empowered to actively 00:27:51.740 --> 00:27:54.160 incorporate its frameworks into their own derivative 00:27:54.160 --> 00:27:57.000 studies. It encourages reuse. The high impact 00:27:57.000 --> 00:27:59.240 factor is not an accident. It is the logical 00:27:59.240 --> 00:28:01.920 mathematical outcome of combining a rigorous 00:28:01.920 --> 00:28:04.819 globally diverse editorial board with a zero 00:28:04.819 --> 00:28:07.059 barrier distribution model. It is a flywheel 00:28:07.059 --> 00:28:09.960 effect. Yes. The journal attracts top tier submissions 00:28:09.960 --> 00:28:12.599 because researchers crave that level of unimpeded 00:28:12.490 --> 00:28:15.859 global reach. The stringent peer review ensures 00:28:15.859 --> 00:28:18.359 only the most robust methodology gets published, 00:28:18.539 --> 00:28:21.200 and the open access ensures maximum visibility, 00:28:21.359 --> 00:28:23.660 which drives up citations, which in turn drives 00:28:23.660 --> 00:28:26.160 up the impact factor, attracting even better 00:28:26.160 --> 00:28:29.000 submissions. It is a perfectly engineered, self 00:28:29.000 --> 00:28:32.200 -sustaining lube of academic influence. And it 00:28:32.200 --> 00:28:34.680 forces us to re -evaluate the entire landscape 00:28:34.680 --> 00:28:37.420 of how we share knowledge. We started this deep 00:28:37.420 --> 00:28:39.700 dive looking at a Wikipedia page about a journal's 00:28:39.700 --> 00:28:42.700 metadata, but what we've actually unpacked is 00:28:42.700 --> 00:28:45.000 a blueprint for the future of academic publishing. 00:28:45.240 --> 00:28:47.720 We traced its origins from the broad sociological 00:28:47.720 --> 00:28:50.000 concepts of the University's A Knowledge Society 00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:53.039 journal in 2004 through its strategic evolution 00:28:53.039 --> 00:28:56.859 in 2016 into a highly specific continuous publishing 00:28:56.859 --> 00:29:00.140 powerhouse partnered with Springer. We examined 00:29:00.140 --> 00:29:03.140 the profound legal and policy implications of 00:29:03.140 --> 00:29:05.400 EdTech that demand its inclusion in databases 00:29:05.400 --> 00:29:08.259 like HeinOnline, alongside standard academic 00:29:08.259 --> 00:29:12.099 indices like Scopus and EBSGO. We saw how a geographically 00:29:12.099 --> 00:29:14.920 diverse editorial team spanning Columbia to Lithuania 00:29:14.920 --> 00:29:17.799 prevents ideological echo chambers. And most 00:29:17.799 --> 00:29:20.500 crucially, we analyzed how it achieved a stratospheric 00:29:20.500 --> 00:29:23.920 7 .611 impact factor while remaining fiercely 00:29:23.920 --> 00:29:26.349 committed to a diamond open access model. Proving 00:29:26.349 --> 00:29:28.230 that the highest levels of academic rigor do 00:29:28.230 --> 00:29:30.009 not require charging the researcher to speak 00:29:30.009 --> 00:29:32.450 or charging the reader to listen. It is a profound 00:29:32.450 --> 00:29:34.849 demonstration that the artificial scarcity imposed 00:29:34.849 --> 00:29:37.529 by traditional publishing models is a choice, 00:29:37.910 --> 00:29:40.950 not a necessity. We have empirical proof documented 00:29:40.950 --> 00:29:43.589 in the indexing and the citation reports that 00:29:43.589 --> 00:29:46.630 a journal can scale globally. partner with the 00:29:46.630 --> 00:29:48.769 largest corporate infrastructure in the publishing 00:29:48.769 --> 00:29:52.490 world, maintain rigorous quality control, and 00:29:52.490 --> 00:29:55.410 disseminate hyper -relevant multidisciplinary 00:29:55.410 --> 00:29:58.289 research without ever erecting a financial paywall. 00:29:58.430 --> 00:30:01.809 It completely changes the baseline of what researchers 00:30:01.809 --> 00:30:03.849 should expect from the platforms that host their 00:30:03.849 --> 00:30:06.470 work. It really does. Which leaves us with a 00:30:06.470 --> 00:30:09.690 critical, undeniable question to ponder as we 00:30:09.690 --> 00:30:13.390 wrap up this deep dive. You have seen the mechanics. 00:30:13.589 --> 00:30:15.630 You understand the funding structure, the licensing, 00:30:15.910 --> 00:30:18.289 and the massive citation success of this model. 00:30:18.490 --> 00:30:20.910 You know it works. So the next time you hit one 00:30:20.910 --> 00:30:23.750 of those $50 academic paywalls while trying to 00:30:23.750 --> 00:30:25.930 do your job, or the next time your department 00:30:25.930 --> 00:30:29.569 is asked to pay a $5 ,000 APC just to share your 00:30:29.569 --> 00:30:32.329 findings with the world, ask yourself. This is 00:30:32.329 --> 00:30:34.690 the big question. If the International Journal 00:30:34.690 --> 00:30:36.849 of Educational Technology and Higher Education 00:30:36.849 --> 00:30:39.869 can successfully run, scale, and thrive at the 00:30:39.869 --> 00:30:43.029 very top of its field using a frictionless diamond 00:30:43.029 --> 00:30:46.269 open access model, what is actually keeping the 00:30:46.269 --> 00:30:48.529 rest of the academic publishing industry from 00:30:48.529 --> 00:30:50.509 doing the exact same thing? It is a question 00:30:50.509 --> 00:30:53.970 of institutional will and perhaps deeply entrenched 00:30:53.970 --> 00:30:56.670 financial interests. It absolutely is. Thank 00:30:56.670 --> 00:30:58.490 you so much for joining us on this deep dive 00:30:58.490 --> 00:31:01.369 today. Whether you use this knowledge to navigate 00:31:01.369 --> 00:31:03.930 your next research project, advocate for open 00:31:03.930 --> 00:31:06.529 access at your own institution, or simply to 00:31:06.529 --> 00:31:08.769 better understand the invisible economic structures 00:31:08.769 --> 00:31:11.349 that dictate the information you consume, we 00:31:11.349 --> 00:31:13.190 hope it gives you a crucial shortcut to being 00:31:13.190 --> 00:31:16.509 well informed. Keep learning, stay curious, and 00:31:16.509 --> 00:31:18.289 always question the architecture of the knowledge 00:31:18.289 --> 00:31:20.390 around you. We will catch you on the next deep 00:31:20.390 --> 00:31:20.710 dive.