Reviewer Guidelines

This guidance is designed to help reviewers evaluate manuscripts consistently, fairly, constructively, and in accordance with the editorial policies.

Before You Begin

Before reviewing a manuscript, please make sure that:

  • You understand the aims and scope of the journal

  • The manuscript falls within your area of academic or professional expertise.

  • You have no actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect your judgment.

  • You are able to complete the review within the requested period.

  • You understand that the manuscript and all associated review materials are confidential.

  • You are able to provide an objective, constructive, and academically justified assessment.

If you identify a potential conflict of interest, believe that the manuscript is outside your expertise, or are unable to complete the review fairly and within the requested period, please inform the Handling Editor or editorial office promptly. These following policies to make 

First Read-Through

Begin by reading the manuscript once to obtain an overall understanding of the study.

Consider whether:

  • the research problem is clear and relevant;

  • the manuscript fits the scope of TIK ILMEU;

  • the research objectives or questions are clearly stated;

  • the main scholarly contribution is identifiable;

  • the study demonstrates sufficient originality;

  • the methodology is appropriate for the research problem;

  • the conclusions are supported by the evidence; and

  • there are any major methodological, conceptual, ethical, or research-integrity concerns.

Publication Ethics   Peer Review Process

Detailed Review

Title

Reviewers should consider:

  • Does the title accurately represent the content of the manuscript?

  • Is it concise, specific, and informative?

  • Does it contain relevant keywords?

  • Does it avoid unnecessary jargon or overly broad claims?

Abstract

Reviewers should consider:

  • Does the abstract clearly state the research problem or purpose?

  • Are the research methods briefly and accurately described?

  • Are the principal findings clearly presented?

  • Is the contribution of the study identifiable?

  • Does the conclusion correspond with the findings?

  • Does the abstract avoid unsupported or exaggerated claims?

Keywords

Reviewers should consider:

  • Are the keywords relevant to the central concepts of the manuscript?

  • Do they improve the discoverability of the article?

  • Do they adequately represent the subject of the study?

  • Do they avoid unnecessary repetition of words already contained in the title?

Introduction

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • the research problem is clearly established;

  • the significance of the study is sufficiently explained;

  • relevant and current scholarly literature is discussed;

  • previous research is critically synthesized rather than merely listed;

  • a clear research gap is identified;

  • the contribution of the study is positioned within existing scholarship; and

  • the research questions or objectives are clearly stated and consistent with the problem presented.

For manuscripts in library and information science, reviewers should consider whether the research problem is clearly situated within relevant LIS scholarship and practice.

Literature Review and Theoretical or Conceptual Framework

Where applicable, reviewers should consider:

  • Is the literature relevant to the research problem?

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate adequate engagement with current scholarship?

  • Are important studies or perspectives appropriately considered?

  • Is the literature critically analyzed rather than simply summarized?

  • Is the theoretical or conceptual framework appropriate?

  • Are key concepts clearly defined?

  • Is the framework meaningfully connected to the research questions, methodology, findings, and discussion?

  • Does the study demonstrate how it extends, confirms, challenges, or applies existing knowledge?

Methods

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • the research design is appropriate for the research questions;

  • the research setting or context is adequately described;

  • the selection of participants, respondents, informants, documents, datasets, or other sources is clearly explained;

  • data collection procedures are sufficiently described;

  • instruments or measurement procedures are adequately explained where applicable;

  • the analytical procedure is clear and appropriate;

  • validity, reliability, trustworthiness, or other relevant quality criteria are appropriately addressed;

  • ethical considerations are adequately reported; and

  • sufficient methodological information is provided to understand how the findings were produced.

The manuscript should be assessed according to the methodological tradition it uses. Qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods, literature-based, conceptual, historical, bibliometric, scientometric, and other research designs should be evaluated using criteria appropriate to their respective approaches.

Results or Findings

Reviewers should consider:

  • Do the findings directly address the research questions or objectives?

  • Are the findings presented clearly and systematically?

  • Are claims supported by sufficient evidence?

  • Are qualitative data, numerical data, documents, bibliometric results, tables, figures, or other evidence used appropriately?

  • Are findings clearly distinguished from interpretation where appropriate?

  • Are contradictory, negative, or unexpected findings acknowledged where relevant?

  • Are the findings consistent with the methods described?

Discussion

Reviewers should assess whether:

  • the discussion interprets rather than simply repeats the findings;

  • findings are connected with previous research;

  • similarities and differences with existing studies are adequately explained;

  • theoretical or conceptual implications are discussed;

  • practical implications for library and information services, institutions, policy, technology, users, or professional practice are appropriately addressed where relevant;

  • the manuscript explains why the findings matter;

  • alternative interpretations are considered where appropriate;

  • the contribution of the study is clearly demonstrated; and

  • claims are proportionate to the evidence.

For empirical studies, reviewers should pay particular attention to whether the discussion demonstrates a meaningful dialogue between the findings and existing scholarship rather than merely restating the results.

Conclusion

Reviewers should consider:

  • Does the conclusion answer the research questions or objectives?

  • Is it supported by the findings?

  • Does it clearly state the main contribution of the study?

  • Are theoretical, practical, institutional, technological, or policy implications appropriately stated where relevant?

  • Are important limitations acknowledged where necessary?

  • Does the conclusion avoid introducing new evidence?

  • Are recommendations proportionate to the scope of the study?

Tables and Figures

Reviewers should assess:

  • Are tables and figures necessary?

  • Are they clearly presented?

  • Are titles, captions, labels, and notes understandable?

  • Are the data consistent with the manuscript?

  • Are tables and figures appropriately interpreted in the text?

  • Is information unnecessarily repeated between the text, tables, and figures?

References

Reviewers should consider:

  • Does the manuscript engage with relevant scholarly literature?

  • Are important studies missing?

  • Is recent scholarship adequately represented where appropriate?

  • Are primary scholarly sources used when available?

  • Are citations relevant to the arguments being made?

  • Is excessive, irrelevant, or inappropriate citation avoided?

  • Are citations consistent with the reference list?

Reviewers should recommend additional references only when they are genuinely relevant to strengthening the manuscript. Reviewers must not request unnecessary citation of their own publications or publications of colleagues.

Writing Your Review Report

A useful review report normally begins with a brief overall assessment of the manuscript, followed by specific comments that help the authors understand what should be improved.

Comments should be:

  • clear;

  • specific;

  • constructive;

  • academically justified;

  • respectful; and

  • actionable.

Where possible, reviewers should refer to the relevant page, section, paragraph, table, figure, or other identifiable location.

Reviewers are encouraged to distinguish clearly between major comments and minor comments.

Major Comments

Major comments concern issues that substantially affect the scholarly quality, validity, or contribution of the manuscript.

These may include:

  • an unclear or insufficient research contribution;

  • inadequate theoretical or conceptual framework;

  • inappropriate research design;

  • insufficient methodological explanation;

  • inadequate data or source selection;

  • major analytical weaknesses;

  • conclusions unsupported by evidence;

  • substantial inconsistencies between research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions; or

  • serious ethical or research-integrity concerns.

Reviewers should explain both what the problem is and what revision is required.

Minor Comments

Minor comments concern issues that can be corrected without fundamentally changing the study.

These may include:

  • clarification of terminology;

  • minor inconsistencies;

  • limited improvements to organization;

  • unclear sentences;

  • table or figure corrections;

  • minor citation or reference problems; or

  • other issues that affect clarity without fundamentally affecting the study.

Reviewers are not expected to copyedit the entire manuscript. Language comments should focus primarily on problems that interfere with clarity or scholarly meaning.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects their assessment.

The recommendation should be consistent with the comments provided in the review report.

Recommendation Criteria
Accept Submission The manuscript is suitable for publication in its present form, with no substantive revisions required.
Minor Revision The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections, clarification, or improvement before publication.
Major Revision The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be considered for publication. This may involve theoretical, methodological, analytical, or structural revision.
Reject Submission The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in TIK ILMEU, contains fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not provide a sufficient scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. After considering the reviewers' reports, the Handling Editor prepares an editorial recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority to accept, request revision of, or reject a manuscript.

Editorial Decision Authority

Reviewers provide independent scholarly assessments and recommendations.

The Handling Editor coordinates the peer review process, evaluates reviewer reports, and submits an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over all publication decisions.

Neither reviewer recommendations nor the Handling Editor's recommendation constitutes the journal's final publication decision.

Where there is substantial disagreement between reviewer reports, where reports are insufficient to support an editorial recommendation, or where additional disciplinary or methodological expertise is required, the Handling Editor may invite an additional independent reviewer.

Reviewing a Revised Manuscript

When reviewing a revised manuscript, focus primarily on the issues raised during the previous review.

Authors are expected to provide a response to reviewers explaining how each substantive comment has been addressed.

Reviewers should consider:

  • Have the authors responded to all major comments?

  • Have the promised revisions actually been incorporated?

  • Have the major scholarly concerns been adequately resolved?

  • Are the authors' explanations reasonable when they choose not to follow a recommendation?

  • Has the revision introduced any new substantive problem?

  • Is the manuscript now suitable for publication?

A revised manuscript should not normally be reviewed as an entirely new submission. Reviewers should avoid introducing new non-essential requirements that could reasonably have been raised during the previous review.

If all substantive concerns have been resolved, reviewers should indicate that the revisions are satisfactory.

Constructive Feedback

Comments should help authors understand how the manuscript can be improved. Criticism should always be directed toward the manuscript, not toward the author.

Avoid:

“The discussion is weak.”

Prefer:

“The discussion summarizes the findings but does not sufficiently explain how they extend or challenge previous research. Please strengthen the analytical dialogue between the findings and the relevant literature.”

Avoid:

“The methods are unclear.”

Prefer:

“Please clarify how participants were selected, how data were collected, and how the data were analyzed so that readers can better understand the methodological and analytical process.”

Confidentiality and Research Integrity

All manuscripts and associated review materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share the manuscript with unauthorized persons;

  • use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

  • contact authors directly regarding the manuscript;

  • disclose confidential information obtained through peer review; or

  • reproduce or distribute manuscript content without authorization.

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, data manipulation, duplicate publication, ethical problems, copyright concerns, or other research-integrity issues, they should report them confidentially to the Handling Editor or editorial office.

Reviewers should not independently investigate suspected research-integrity violations or contact the authors about such concerns.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Manuscripts under peer review are confidential scholarly documents.

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, response letters, unpublished data, tables, figures, or other confidential review materials to public, unauthorized, or non-approved generative Artificial Intelligence systems.

Generative AI must not replace the reviewer's independent scholarly judgment. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, confidentiality, objectivity, and integrity of their review reports.

Generative AI Policy

Review Turnaround

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their review within four weeks of accepting the review invitation.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the assessment within the specified period, the reviewer should inform the Handling Editor or editorial office as early as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

To preserve the journal's double-anonymous peer review process, reviewers must not include their name, institutional identity, signature, or other identifying information in comments intended for authors.

Final Checks

Before submitting your review, please confirm that:

  • You have provided a brief overall assessment.

  • You have identified the manuscript's strengths as well as its weaknesses.

  • You have clearly distinguished major and minor concerns.

  • Your comments are specific, understandable, and actionable.

  • You have explained what the authors need to revise.

  • Your comments focus on the manuscript rather than the authors.

  • You have avoided unnecessary requests for additional citations.

  • You have assessed the relationship between the research questions, methods, findings, and conclusions.

  • Your recommendation is consistent with your comments.

  • Confidential concerns have been placed only in the section intended for the Handling Editor or editorial office.

  • You have maintained the confidentiality of the manuscript.

  • If this is a revised manuscript, you have focused on whether previous concerns were satisfactorily addressed.