The peer review process in our journal is double-blind – the identities of both the author and the reviewer remain unknown to each other. The aim of the review is to provide an independent, objective, and scholarly assessment of the manuscript’s quality, its contribution to science and practice in the field of library and information science, and to formulate constructive feedback for the author.
Reviewer Guidelines
When evaluating the manuscript, please adhere to the following principles:
- Ethical conduct: Conduct your review impartially, objectively, and in accordance with the ethical standards of scholarly peer review (e.g., COPE guidelines). If you identify any conflict of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationship with the author, involvement in the research under review), please inform the editorial office and decline the review.
- Expertise: Accept review assignments only for submissions where you have sufficient expertise. If there are aspects of the manuscript that you cannot adequately assess (e.g., specific methods or data analysis), please state this in your review.
- Confidentiality: The content of the reviewed manuscript is confidential. Do not share the manuscript or any part of it with others, do not use any information gained during the review process for personal benefit, and do not contact the author directly.
- Constructive feedback: Provide comments that are objective, professional, and constructive. Clearly indicate the strengths of the manuscript as well as areas for improvement or clarification. Avoid personal, emotional, or derogatory language.
- Originality and prior publication: Ensure that the manuscript is original and unpublished. If you suspect plagiarism, redundant publication, or any form of ethical misconduct, notify the editorial team and provide supporting evidence or sources (e.g., links to similar published works).
Evaluation Criteria
Please assess the manuscript using the following criteria. For each aspect, provide your evaluation and a brief justification:
- Relevance and significance: To what extent is the topic relevant to the journal’s scope and valuable for the LIS field? (Is it timely and important for the professional community? Does it introduce new insights or practical approaches?)
- Originality: Assess the novelty and originality of the manuscript. (Does it present unique research findings, data, or interpretations that have not been published before?)
- Abstract: Evaluate whether the abstract clearly summarizes the objective, methods, key results, and conclusions. (Does the abstract inform the reader about what was studied, how, and with what outcome? Is it informative rather than merely formal?)
- Methodology and analysis: If the manuscript is research-based, evaluate the appropriateness and clarity of the methodology and the quality of data analysis. (Are the research design and methods well-described and adequate for the study’s goals?)
- Research ethics compliance: If the study involves human participants (e.g., user studies, surveys, interviews), assess whether the author adheres to basic research ethics. (Are participants anonymized? Is informed consent mentioned? Is the study aligned with academic research ethics?)
- Results and interpretation: Evaluate the accuracy and clarity of presented results and whether conclusions are well-supported. (Do the conclusions logically follow from the findings? Are there any misinterpretations or unfounded claims?)
- Structure and style: Evaluate the organization, clarity, and language quality of the manuscript. (Does it include all standard sections such as introduction, literature review, methodology, discussion, and conclusion? Is the language clear, grammatically correct, and appropriate for academic writing?)
- Use of literature and citations: Assess whether the author engages with relevant and up-to-date scholarly literature and cites sources properly both in-text and in the reference list. (Are the references appropriate, current, and consistent with the required citation style?)
- Tables and figures: If applicable, assess the quality and clarity of tables, graphs, images, or supplementary materials. (Do they add value to the text? Are they appropriately labeled and not redundant?)
- Overall contribution: Consider the overall scholarly quality of the manuscript and its contribution to knowledge or practice. (Does it represent a meaningful advancement in the field? Is it suitable for publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal?)
Final Recommendation
Based on the above evaluation, please provide your recommendation to the editors:
- Accept (publish as is): The manuscript fully meets the journal’s standards and requires no substantive revisions.
- Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is sound and publishable, but minor corrections or clarifications are needed (a new review is not required).
- Major revision (revise and resubmit): The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision; resubmission and a new review round are needed.
- Reject: The manuscript does not meet scholarly standards, has major flaws, or lacks sufficient contribution; not recommended for publication.
Please briefly explain your decision. If you have specific suggestions for the author, include them in the comments section.
Ethical Statement
By submitting the review, the reviewer confirms that the report was prepared impartially and honestly, in line with scholarly ethical standards, and that there is no conflict of interest related to the manuscript under review.