Scoping Peer Reviewed Journals for Supporting Multimodal Publishing in Literacy and Language Education

• In Event: Whose Modes Matter? Creating Robust, Peer-Reviewed Publishing Pathways for Multimodal Scholars

Abstract

This scoping review (Tricco et al. 2018) provides a preliminary assessment of peer-reviewed journals’ publishing criteria as it relates to multimodal representations within literacy and language education-focused manuscripts. Our guiding question is: What are affordances and constraints of multimodal publishing demonstrated in any submission guidance within peer-reviewed journals accepting literacy and language education-focused manuscripts?

This review draws on a social semiotic perspective of multimodality; that is, communication and meaning-making are inherently multimodal (Kress, 2010). We communicate leveraging many modalities (e.g., words, images, embodied) with constraints and affordances which impact meaning-making potentials (Kress, 2010; Jewitt, 2009). In the digital age, especially with the rise of generative AI, multimodal publishing has become an expansive avenue for scholars to share their work using diverse digital technologies.

The research team conducted an initial review of 18 of the 90 journals meeting the inclusion criteria to pilot and refine analysis protocols and establish interrater reliability for future independent content analysis (Neuendorf, 2017). The research team engaged in analytic memoing throughout the entire review process to support discussion about preliminary trends about affordances and constraints (Ely et al., 1991). Table 1 shows scoping review methods were guided by PRIMSA-ScR (Tricco et al. 2018) to ensure transparency and rigor and process steps and study connection.

Eighteen journals reviewed span across six publishers (Figure 1). All researchers noted general clarity in author guidelines with specific support for authors using visual multimodal representations (e.g., figures, tables). Table 2 provides a closer examination of emergent critical qualities for multimodal publication.

Submission guidelines provide some degree of support for authors in using visual multimodal representations, differing in terms of their specificity of details (e.g., image size, resolution, shading, contrast, etc.). Notably, Wiley journals (e.g., Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy) permit the use of embedded “rich media” (e.g., audio, video) within digital publication of the final manuscript. Table 2 shows most journals relegate rich media to supplemental materials rather than within the manuscript.

Several journals endorse using multimodal representations to help readers and non-specialists better understand content (e.g., extenders, supplemental materials). These multimodal publication opportunities include graphical and video abstracts, color reproduction, and cover images for journals. For instance, the Journal of Computer Assisted Learning actively encourages the use of visual content to disseminate knowledge through video abstracts, article cover images, and infographics. The Journal of Visual Literacy notes in supplemental material guidelines that “Articles with extenders, such as infographics or video summaries, are up to 108% more likely to be downloaded.” Taylor & Francis and Wiley publications provide video abstract guidance for authors with working knowledge of and tools for video creation; however, many multimodal publishing opportunities with larger publishers come at a steep cost if their in-house production services are used (e.g., graphical/video abstracts, infographics).

This scoping review highlights tensions between multimodal research practices and print-dominant publication norms, offering insights for more equitable alignment between scholarly communication and evolving methodological innovation.

Authors

• Brett Stamm, University of Southern Mississippi

• Qianqian Ma, University at Buffalo - SUNY

• Katarina N. Silvestri, SUNY - College at Cortland

• Aijuan Cun, University of New Mexico