Information for Peer Reviewers

All papers submitted to The Journal of Open Initiatives in Academic Libraries (JOI) for publication are subject to an open peer review process. More information about our process is detailed below.

Peer reviewing is an essential component in promoting excellence in research, authorship, and the dissemination of knowledge. Peer reviewers help the editors decide which papers to publish. In return, reviewers gain insight into current thinking, trends, and the results of research before they become publicly available. While the main objective is peer-reviewing papers for potential inclusion in the journal, peer reviewers can also help support and promote the journal as appropriate. This could include recommending the journal to your colleagues or students for reading, citing the journal, or publishing in the journal yourself.

Peer reviewers should see their role as fundamental to the development and protection of the journal’s quality. It is the peer reviewer’s responsibility to ensure that every paper recommended for publication is well-written, well-researched, and makes a significant contribution to the existing knowledge base, and that the author(s) are protected from putting poor work into print. From this perspective, the peer reviewer should not only read the papers thoroughly to identify flaws, but should also make recommendations to the author(s) as to how the paper might be improved.

We hope that you will consider your role as peer reviewer seriously and spend the appropriate and necessary time to provide the editors and the authors with a thorough and unbiased review. If you do not have sufficient time, or if you feel that a paper is outside your area of expertise or presents a conflict of interest, please let the editors know as soon as possible so that they can identify an alternative peer reviewer.

Please strive to maintain a positive, impartial attitude toward the manuscript under review. The position of the peer reviewer should be that of the author’s ally, with the aim of promoting effective and accurate communication. In preparing comments intended for the author’s eyes, present criticism dispassionately and avoid abrasive comments. Constructive and positive comments help authors develop their work and raise the general standard of writing. Unconsidered, thoughtless comments will discourage many authors’ future involvement in writing for publication. 

 As JOI is an international journal, please consider this when commenting on both the content and style of the article. Topics of interest may vary among countries. This may include library and information science (LIS) professionals in developing countries dealing with issues that may have been largely dealt with in developed countries. Additionally, the writing of articles by authors whose first language is not English may require work.

Open Review Process

An open review process is an element of the open research ecosystem and supports transparency. Open review is as rigorous as other review models and calls for the reviewer to act in ethical and transparent ways while reviewing work. For JOI, both the author(s) and reviewers names are shared throughout the entire process. It is the responsibility of the reviewer to declare any conflicts of interest prior to accepting the appointment. In an effort to acknowledge and credit the work that goes into conducting a peer review, the review (including reviewer name and institutional affiliation) will be published alongside the manuscript at the time of publication. Reviewers are encouraged to include the publication on their researcher profiles. 

We believe this type of transparency can help mitigate the often over-looked work of peer review, as well as create a constructive and considerate publishing space. Any conflicts that arise during this process will be handled by the Editors-in-Chief and addressed immediately. The editorial board will be responsible for ensuring that there are no violations of ethical conduct during the open peer review process. Any reviewers or authors conducting themselves outside of these expectations will forfeit their right to inclusion in the publication of the journal and their acceptance will be terminated immediately. 

Conflict of interest

Before reviewing a paper, the reviewer should ensure that there is no conflict of interest in their reviewing the paper. In such cases, the section editor should be contacted immediately regarding the conflict of interest so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned.

Ethical Violations in a Paper Under Review

Please discontinue your review process immediately and notify the editorial board if your article has any of the following disqualifying features:

  • plagiarism
  • fabricated results
  • absence of IRB approval or unethical procedures for human research

Confidentiality

An unpublished manuscript is a privileged document. Review and handle the manuscript in the strictest confidence and protect it from any and all forms of exploitation or misuse. It is essential that the manuscript or any portion of it is not reproduced, circulated, cited, or referred to prior to its publication.

Accepting/Rejecting a Review Request

If you are unable to review the manuscript due to time constraints, lack of interest or expertise, or for any other reason, do not accept the request to review in order to gain access to the full paper. To do so is unethical. Only accept to review manuscripts for which you are confident you will be able to provide a timely and high quality review.

Please accept or decline a request to review a manuscript promptly. The deadline to accept or decline a review is seven days from the date of the request. If you decline a review, please provide a reason so that the editors can better assign manuscripts in the future. If you are no longer interested in reviewing for the journal, please inform us so that your name can be removed from our list.

Feedback to Authors

The JOI Editorial Board appreciates the value of a peer reviewer’s recommendations.  As editorial decisions are based on evaluations from more than one source (i.e., more than one peer reviewer), a peer reviewer should not expect the editors to honor every recommendation. Please do not make specific comments about the acceptability of an article in your comments for transmission to the author. Suggested revisions should not be expressed as conditions of acceptance. You may feel free to give the editors your opinion regarding the overall acceptability of the manuscript.

Ensure that your review is as comprehensive and exhaustive as possible. Consider all aspects of the draft you are reviewing. Editors assign manuscripts to peer reviewers based on areas of expertise and interest. If there is an aspect of the research methodology or subject area in which you lack expertise, let the editor know that you did not provide comments in that area. The editor may have chosen other peer reviewers with other areas of expertise to complement your own. If you think you do not have the expertise or skills required to properly review the manuscript, please inform the editor and decline the review.

Read the draft several times, looking for high-level matters such as interest level, general organization, and clarity of discussion in your first reading.

Be careful about making comments or criticisms based on your own personal style. Instead, base comments and suggestions for improvements on accepted guidelines, concepts, and rules. Any criticisms, arguments, and suggestions concerning the manuscript will be most useful to the author if they are carefully documented and presented fairly and clearly. 

Fully explain the problems you find. For example, rather than saying that a paper “seems disorganized,” explain what is disorganized about it, using specific details from the draft to illustrate. Attempt to suggest ways to correct the problem. Identify any unclear or ambiguous passages, possible reorganization, or the need for condensing particular passages. If the manuscript includes repeated instances in need of correction or improvement, consider providing one or two examples.

Keep in mind that JOI is an international journal, and that readers may require further explanation of certain terms (e.g., “professor,” “lecturer,” “sophomore”) or descriptions of bureaucratic structures. In addition, readers may not be familiar with some colloquialisms or expressions of a particular region. Please suggest clarification of terms that may be ambiguous to improve clarity for all readers.

Find positive, encouraging things to say about the draft that you are reviewing. Compliments, even small ones, are appreciated. 

Recommendation

Once the review is written, please indicate a recommendation to the editor by making a selection from the drop-down menu. Please note that the editor is not obligated to follow a peer reviewer’s recommendation, and that two reviewers may provide different recommendations. In some cases, the editor may ask a third reviewer to undertake a peer review of the submission.

The options for recommendations for JOI are: 

  • Accept submission: The manuscript is in scope, meets all the requirements, and there are no changes (other than copyediting) necessary.
  • Revisions required: The manuscript is in scope and meets most or some of the requirements for acceptance. Revisions, either minor or significant, are recommended.
  • Resubmit for review: The manuscript is in scope but does not meet the requirement for acceptance. Significant revisions requiring a subsequent round of peer review are necessary before considering this manuscript for publication.
  • Resubmit elsewhere: This option is not applicable, as JOI does not have any partner journals.
  • Decline submission: The manuscript is out of scope or does not meet the requirements, even with major revisions or a resubmission.
  • See comments: Use only in exceptional circumstances, in which none of the above options apply. Use the comment box “for editor” section to elaborate.

Peer Review Template

Peer reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript critically and constructively and to provide valid and informative comments to authors and editors, which will facilitate improvement in their work. A peer review template will be available for review to gain a better understanding of the questions you'll be asked to answer when reviewing. Keep in mind that all questions will not be applicable to every paper and that some papers will present other questions not included in this list. 

Resources

We recommend the following resources for examples of peer review comments and tips for peer reviewing: