Brief report on Open Praxis figures and data (2016)
Brief report on Open Praxis figures and data (2016)
In?s Gil-Jaurena Editor for Open Praxis. Universidad Nacional de Educaci?n a Distancia - UNED (Spain)
In this first issue in 2017, as we did in past years (Gil-Jaurena, 2015, 2016a), we briefly report on some illustrative statistics and information about Open Praxis development, covering until publication of volume 8 in 2016 and providing specific data about that volume. Table 1 includes different journal statistics: number of submissions and number of finally published papers; acceptance rates; number of authors and reviewers; paper views (as reported by OJS reports). Open Praxis volume 8 had 61 authors (excluding editor) from 14 different countries that got their research papers, innovative practice papers or book reviews, a total of 30, accepted for publication. Considering the international scope of the journal, contributions are geographically and institutionally balanced. The 61 reviewers reflect a geographical and institutional balance, as well, as shown in the list available in the Open Praxis website (http://openpraxis.org/index.php/OpenPraxis/pages/ view/reviewer).
Items published; Research papers; Innovative practice papers
Software or book reviews
Rejected before peer-review
Days to publication
Number of authors
Average authors per paper
Number of reviewers
Full paper views (until
March 15th 2017)
2013, volume 5 2014, volume 6 2015, volume 7 2016, volume 8
issues 1-4 issues 1-4 issues 1-4 issues 1-4
* Special papers: ICDE prizes 2013 and 2015, Open Education Consortium Global Conference selected
papers 2014, 2015 and 2016)
Regarding visitors and readers, figure 1 shows their location. Since publication of issue 5(1) in
January 2013 until February 28th 2017, the Open Praxis website has had visits from 197 countries,
being the top ten the following (in descending order): United States, Spain, United Kingdom, India,
Canada, South Africa, Palestine, Australia, Indonesia and Greece.
About the academic impact, citations to Open Praxis in scientific publications (journals, conference
proceedings, books and other specialized works) have progressively increased since the relaunching
of the journal in 2013 (figure 2). Open Praxis h-index is 20 (source: Google Scholar, March 20th,
After this brief report, what follows is an introduction to the first Open Praxis issue in volume 9,
which includes seven articles in the research papers section and one innovative practice paper.
Thanks to a grant we have received from OpenAIRE in the Alternative Funding Mechanism for
APC-free Open Access journals and platforms under the EC FP7 Post-Grant Open Access Pilot
(https://blogs.openaire.eu/?p=1701), Open Praxis is undertaking some technical improvements, one
of them being that the papers in this issue are published in three different formats: the traditional
pdf is accompanied by html and xml versions. Another improvement relates to the inclusion of
authors? ORCID identifiers in each paper and metadata, as we informed in the last issue in 2016
In the first article, Amy Collier and Jen Ross (For whom, and for what? Not-yetness and thinking
beyond open content) introduce a new concept, not-yetness, that challenges the discourse about
openness and technology and education from a critical perspective. Their analysis goes beyond
the dichotomy open/close and puts the focus on overcoming simplification and raising issues of
power and inclusion that widen the meanings of ?open? in education. The authors illustrate this new
approach with examples, and the paper results on an invitation to educators to consider this new
lens and reflect about open practices from a different perspective.
The next three papers report about studies undertaken in relation to online course experiences.
In this regard, Karl Parke, Nicola Marsden and Cornelia Connolly (Lay Theories Regarding
Computer-Mediated Communication in Remote Collaboration) have explored students? previous
ideas about CMC and their evolution after experiencing it in a remote collaboration that involves
students from various European universities in a master course, which includes CMC in the study
contents. The paper describes the course and presents a qualitative analysis of students? final
reports, where their lay theories about CMC emerge. The authors discuss how the previous intuitive
ideas and expectations evolve and change in most cases, highlighting the relevance of examining
and challenging students lay theories.
In the next paper, Buddhini Gayathri Jayatilleke, Geetha Udayanganie Kulasekara, Malinda
Bandara Kumarasinha and Charlotte Nirmalani Gunawardena (Implementing the First Cross-border
Professional Development Online Course through International E-mentoring: Reflections and
Perspectives) report on an international online course for online teachers that used the cycle of
inquiry in its design. They collect qualitative information from learners (who were also academics
in their respective institutions) and faculty. Thus, through reflective practice, they analyse the course
and provide a set of useful recommendations for other faculty of managers willing to implement
Finally, Ravi Murugesan, Andy Nobes and Joanna Wild (A MOOC approach for training researchers
in developing countries) analyze a specific course, also addressed to academics, oriented to
promoting research publishing among them. The course, implemented in a MOOC format, is based
on the Community of Inquiry model. The authors describe and analyze it, providing information
about learners? profile and performance in the MOOC, as well as the results of a follow-up survey
that measured the positive impact of the MOOC in improving research publishing.
Also dealing with the topic of MOOCs, Cengiz Hakan Aydin (Current Status of the MOOC Movement
in the World and Reaction of the Turkish Higher Education Institutions) provides a detailed
surveybased analysis of MOOCs in the Turkish context. Framed in a European project that explored
MOOCs from a European perspective and confronted it to a USA perspective, this paper focuses
on the specific results found in Turkey, in comparison with Europe and USA. The study covers topics
of awareness, perspectives, adaptation strategies and refraining reasons regarding MOOCs in
Turkish Higher Education, and includes identified challenges and recommendations at different
The last two articles in the research papers section deal with open textbooks in USA contexts.
In the first one, Michael Troy Martin, Olga Maria Belikov, John Hilton III, David Wiley and Lane
Fischer (Analysis of Student and Faculty Perceptions of Textbook Costs in Higher Education)
document a survey based research develop in their university, where they have collected detailed
opinions from students about textbook costs and from faculty about open textbooks as a type of
OER. The authors advocate for open textbooks based on the results of the study, which provides
evidence of the limitations derived from textbooks cost for many students and of the demand, from
faculty, for support to move towards OER.
In the second paper about open textbooks, Emily Croteau (Measures of student success with
textbook transformations: the Affordable Learning Georgia Initiative) focuses on analyzing the results
of an already ongoing initiative, specifically its impact on students? outcomes. Besides saving
students? money, this quantitative study shows that the initiative that replaced traditional textbooks
with OER did not have a negative effect in various indicators, such as final grades or completion
rates. Advocacy for OER becomes an issue in this paper, as well.
Finally, Andrea da Silva Marques Ribeiro, Esequiel Rodrigues Oliveira and Rodrigo Fortes Mello
present an innovative practice paper (Building a Virtual Learning Environment to Foster Blended
Learning Experiences in an Institute of Application in Brazil), which describes the experience in the
educational centre (from elementary to high school) attached to their university where graduate and
master students get part of their teacher education. The innovation consists in the implementation
of a VLE, where students were involved also as part of their teacher education. The paper reports
on the initiative, explaining different decisions made and envisioning next steps in the project.
We hope these contributions will invite to reflection and innovation in open, distance and flexible
Special thanks from Open Praxis to the authors and reviewers who have contributed to this issue.
Papers are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Gil-Jaurena , I. ( 2015 ). Brief report on Open Praxis figures and data (2013-2014) . Open Praxis , 7 ( 1 ), 3 - 6 . http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.7.1. 191
Gil-Jaurena , I. ( 2016a ). Brief report on Open Praxis development. Open Praxis , 8 ( 1 ), 3 - 7 . http:// dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.1. 296
Gil-Jaurena , I. ( 2016b ). Introduction to Open Praxis volume 8 issue 4. Open Praxis , 8 ( 4 ), 281 - 282 . http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/openpraxis.8.4. 501