Peer Review Process

TIK ILMEU – Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, objectivity, confidentiality, and integrity of scholarly evaluation. The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts first undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their conformity with the journal's aims and scope, author guidelines, ethical standards, originality requirements, and minimum academic quality. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be rejected without being sent for external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to a Handling Editor based on the manuscript's subject area and methodologTable of Correctionpubical expertise. The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the peer review process, assessing reviewer reports, and providing an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Each manuscript sent for external review is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise. Reviewers assess the manuscript based on, among other considerations, its originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, quality of analysis, and contribution to the field of library and information science.

Reviewer comments and recommendations are advisory and are considered as part of the editorial decision-making process. If the reviewer reports differ substantially, are insufficient to support an editorial decision, or additional expertise is required, the Handling Editor may invite an additional reviewer.

Reviewer Guidelines

 Authors should address each comment clearly, explain the revisions made, and indicate the corresponding section or page number in the revised manuscript. If a suggestion is not adopted, authors should provide a clear academic justification. The following template is provided as an example to help authors prepare a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments.

Respose to Reviewers

After considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript, and any revisions submitted by the authors, the Handling Editor submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The recommendation may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority over all publication decisions. A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the Editor-in-Chief has made the final decision. Reviewers and Handling Editors do not have independent authority to accept or reject manuscripts.

Revised manuscripts may be reassessed by the Handling Editor and, when necessary, returned to the original reviewers or assigned to another independent reviewer. Manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and publication only after final acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief. 

Editorial Roles and Decision Authority

Editorial Role	Responsibilities and Decision Authority
Reviewer	Provide independent scholarly evaluations, comments, and recommendations on the manuscript. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final publication decision.
Editor	Coordinates the peer review process, evaluates reviewer reports, considers the manuscript and authors' revisions where applicable, and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.
Editor in Chief	Considers the manuscript, reviewer reports, revisions, and the Handling Editor's recommendation, and retains final authority over acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript.