Junhong Xiao
I have been teaching English at higher education institutions since 1983. From 2001 to 2002, I worked as a Visiting Research Fellow at the Faculty of Education and Language Studies, the UK Open University, funded by the China Scholarship Council. During my stay at the UKOU, I was attached to the course teams of Language and Literacy in a Changing World (a MA course) and English Grammar in Context (a BA course). In 2004, I was involved in developmental testing for another OU course - The Art of English.
Over the past 30 years, I have published widely in the fields of English grammar, discourse analysis, pragmatics, systemic-functional grammar, TESOL as well as distance and open learning. My publications include over 150 academic papers in dozens of journals and 10 books.
Currently, my research interest is in the field of distance language learning and teaching (see a list of recent English publications in international journals below).
In addition to my routine teaching job, I offer peer review for several journals (both English and Chinese) and provide paid consulting. I am an Associate Editor of Distance Education (The official journal of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia Inc. ) and also on the Editorial Board of System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.
Over the past 30 years, I have published widely in the fields of English grammar, discourse analysis, pragmatics, systemic-functional grammar, TESOL as well as distance and open learning. My publications include over 150 academic papers in dozens of journals and 10 books.
Currently, my research interest is in the field of distance language learning and teaching (see a list of recent English publications in international journals below).
In addition to my routine teaching job, I offer peer review for several journals (both English and Chinese) and provide paid consulting. I am an Associate Editor of Distance Education (The official journal of the Open and Distance Learning Association of Australia Inc. ) and also on the Editorial Board of System: An International Journal of Educational Technology and Applied Linguistics.
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (12)
Uploads
Papers by Junhong Xiao
agency and biases and values embedded in their designs. As GenAI continues to evolve, we face critical challenges in maintaining human oversight, safeguarding equity, and facilitating meaningful, authentic learning experiences. This manifesto emphasizes that GenAI is not ideologically and culturally neutral. Instead, it reflects worldviews
that can reinforce existing biases and marginalize diverse voices. Furthermore, as the use of GenAI reshapes education, it risks eroding essential human elements—creativity, critical thinking, and empathy—and could displace meaningful human interactions with algorithmic solutions. This manifesto calls for robust, evidence-based research and conscious decision-making to ensure that GenAI enhances, rather than diminishes, human agency and ethical responsibility in education.
All manuscript submissions will undergo a double-blind, peer review. Final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection will be based on the reviews received from at least two independent, anonymous expert referees.
agency and biases and values embedded in their designs. As GenAI continues to evolve, we face critical challenges in maintaining human oversight, safeguarding equity, and facilitating meaningful, authentic learning experiences. This manifesto emphasizes that GenAI is not ideologically and culturally neutral. Instead, it reflects worldviews
that can reinforce existing biases and marginalize diverse voices. Furthermore, as the use of GenAI reshapes education, it risks eroding essential human elements—creativity, critical thinking, and empathy—and could displace meaningful human interactions with algorithmic solutions. This manifesto calls for robust, evidence-based research and conscious decision-making to ensure that GenAI enhances, rather than diminishes, human agency and ethical responsibility in education.
All manuscript submissions will undergo a double-blind, peer review. Final decision regarding acceptance/revision/rejection will be based on the reviews received from at least two independent, anonymous expert referees.
renewed dialogue on ODDE has emerged, engaging many regions and countries. The Handbook of ODDE arrives at just the right time, intending to provide a comprehensive and updated overview of the field for educators, researchers, policymakers, and administrators in a wide range of sectors such as k-12 education, higher education, adult education, and workplace training. This Handbook has brought together leaders and scholars in the field of ODDE from around the world to discuss diverse perspectives and research findings on all important issues in ODDE
I submitted an article to the DE journal on July 19, 2022 which was vetoed by the Editor on July 20. To be more specific, the Editor sent me an email on July 20, saying he had "lots of issues with the paper" and that before he formally rejected it (EVEN BEFORE going through the review process!), he would like to let me know why and listen to my responses. I then had a look at the issues he had raised. The first one referred to the Notes on Contributor which appeared at the end of a published article, questioning my credential to do this study and I immediately knew he was handling my submission with bias. The value of an article is not judged by its Notes on Contributor. This is common sense. I responded to his comments one by one, even using his own example to refute his accusation. (Yes, I use the word "accusation" because he was simply finding faults!). This is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. The article was even denied of the opportunity of peer-review! After receiving my defence, he had nothing else to say, posing no more challenges except that he was not convinced, and again struck up the same old tune that "A lot of factors contribute to the publication of an article". I immediately withdrew this submission and decided to submit it elsewhere to prove the article was publishable. I'm not implying that my article was perfect, leaving nothing to be desired. I have always been open to constructive comments, suggestions, and criticisms like other researchers. It was a fair opportunity that I should be entitled to and was expecting but was brutally withheld. The article received two positive and constructive review reports from the new journal I submitted it to and was published (early release) one month after it was vetoed by the DE Editor who didn’t even put it through the conventional review process.
I was hurt by this first event but this is the way the Editor has been running the journal in recent years, which I don’t like, because it has led to an increasingly less democratic and professional relationship between him and his AEs. I have voiced my concern and suggested ameliorating this situation together with other AEs in email correspondence to him more than once, but to no avail. Having said that, my commitment to the journal has remained unabated, and I’m sure my colleagues are willing to testify to my unwavering dedication. For example, I continued to review an article he assigned to me after his first veto. However, what happened to the second article which I submitted on August 13 was even more UNACCEPTABLE, UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE, and UNJUSTIFIED. He wrote to me on August 16, listing 6 reasons why my article needed to be rejected, again, without being sent out for review. I read his comments including the track comments on the manuscript. I was outraged this time and decided to fight back. So when I received the formal Decision email on August 18, I responded to his comments and brought the issue forward to the editorial team (See the document attached). This was an appeal against the editor’s decision following Taylor & Francis protocol whereby “If you wish to appeal a journal editor’s decision, please submit an appeal letter to the journal’s online editorial office. Please address this to the editor and explain clearly the basis for an appeal.” Regrettably, the Editor arrogantly turned a deaf ear to the call for conversation from two AEs as well as to my appeal. In this case, I wrote to the editorial board to air my grievances on August 20, another attempt to appeal the Editor’s decision, but once again he did not respond to calls for conversation and settlement from the board.
I regarded the Editor’s refusal to respond as a slight. The DE journal under his editorship is no longer worth my time and attention. My resignation is effective immediately. I believe you have already come to your own judgment after reading what happened to me.
I submitted an article to the DE journal on July 19, 2022 which was vetoed by the Editor on July 20. To be more specific, the Editor sent me an email on July 20, saying he had "lots of issues with the paper" and that before he formally rejected it (EVEN BEFORE going through the review process!), he would like to let me know why and listen to my responses. I then had a look at the issues he had raised. The first one referred to the Notes on Contributor which appeared at the end of a published article, questioning my credential to do this study and I immediately knew he was handling my submission with bias. The value of an article is not judged by its Notes on Contributor. This is common sense. I responded to his comments one by one, even using his own example to refute his accusation. (Yes, I use the word "accusation" because he was simply finding faults!). This is totally unacceptable and unprofessional. The article was even denied of the opportunity of peer-review! After receiving my defence, he had nothing else to say, posing no more challenges except that he was not convinced, and again struck up the same old tune that "A lot of factors contribute to the publication of an article". I immediately withdrew this submission and decided to submit it elsewhere to prove the article was publishable. I'm not implying that my article was perfect, leaving nothing to be desired. I have always been open to constructive comments, suggestions, and criticisms like other researchers. It was a fair opportunity that I should be entitled to and was expecting but was brutally withheld. The article received two positive and constructive review reports from the new journal I submitted it to and was published (early release) one month after it was vetoed by the DE Editor who didn’t even put it through the conventional review process.
I was hurt by this first event but this is the way the Editor has been running the journal in recent years, which I don’t like, because it has led to an increasingly less democratic and professional relationship between him and his AEs. I have voiced my concern and suggested ameliorating this situation together with other AEs in email correspondence to him more than once, but to no avail. Having said that, my commitment to the journal has remained unabated, and I’m sure my colleagues are willing to testify to my unwavering dedication. For example, I continued to review an article he assigned to me after his first veto. However, what happened to the second article which I submitted on August 13 was even more UNACCEPTABLE, UNFAIR, UNREASONABLE, and UNJUSTIFIED. He wrote to me on August 16, listing 6 reasons why my article needed to be rejected, again, without being sent out for review. I read his comments including the track comments on the manuscript. I was outraged this time and decided to fight back. So when I received the formal Decision email on August 18, I responded to his comments and brought the issue forward to the editorial team (See the document attached). This was an appeal against the editor’s decision following Taylor & Francis protocol whereby “If you wish to appeal a journal editor’s decision, please submit an appeal letter to the journal’s online editorial office. Please address this to the editor and explain clearly the basis for an appeal.” Regrettably, the Editor arrogantly turned a deaf ear to the call for conversation from two AEs as well as to my appeal. In this case, I wrote to the editorial board to air my grievances on August 20, another attempt to appeal the Editor’s decision, but once again he did not respond to calls for conversation and settlement from the board.
I regarded the Editor’s refusal to respond as a slight. The DE journal under his editorship is no longer worth my time and attention. My resignation is effective immediately. I believe you have already come to your own judgment after reading what happened to me.