Editor Guidelines

These guidelines apply to the Editor-in-Chief, Handling Editors, and other editors involved in the editorial process.

1. Editorial Responsibilities

Editors are responsible for:

  • ensuring that manuscripts are processed fairly, objectively, and consistently;

  • assessing manuscripts according to the journal's aims and scope;

  • ensuring the integrity and confidentiality of the editorial and peer review process;

  • selecting appropriate and independent reviewers;

  • evaluating reviewer reports carefully and objectively;

  • communicating editorial decisions and revision requests clearly to authors;

  • identifying and addressing potential conflicts of interest;

  • maintaining editorial independence;

  • protecting the integrity of the scholarly record; and

  • following the journal's Publication Ethics and other editorial policies.

Editors should not discriminate against authors on the basis of nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, seniority, or other personal characteristics.

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts should undergo an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The assessment should consider:

  • whether the manuscript fits the journal's aims and scope;

  • whether it follows the journal's submission and formatting requirements;

  • whether the manuscript demonstrates sufficient academic quality;

  • whether the research appears original and appropriately referenced;

  • whether ethical requirements have been adequately addressed where applicable; and

  • whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.

Editors may reject a manuscript at this stage when it clearly falls outside the journal's scope, fails to meet essential submission requirements, or has fundamental scholarly or ethical problems.

An editorial rejection at the initial assessment stage should be based on legitimate editorial considerations and should not be used to discriminate against authors.

3. Assignment of Handling Editor

Manuscripts that proceed to external review should be assigned to a Handling Editor whose expertise is reasonably related to the subject or methodology of the manuscript.

The Handling Editor is responsible for coordinating the peer review process, including:

  • identifying and inviting appropriate reviewers;

  • monitoring the review process;

  • assessing the quality and relevance of reviewer reports;

  • communicating with authors and reviewers where necessary; and

  • preparing an editorial recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief.

A Handling Editor does not have independent authority to make the final publication decision.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Editors should select reviewers who:

  • have appropriate expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • are able to provide an independent scholarly assessment;

  • have no known conflict of interest with the authors or the manuscript;

  • can complete the review within the requested period; and

  • are able to provide constructive and academically justified comments.

TIK ILMEU normally uses at least two independent reviewers for manuscripts proceeding to external peer review.

Where reviewer reports substantially conflict, are insufficient, or additional expertise is required, the Handling Editor may invite an additional reviewer.

5. Double-Anonymous Peer Review

TIK ILMEU uses a double-anonymous peer review process.

Editors should take reasonable measures to protect the identities of both authors and reviewers throughout the review process.

Editors must not disclose reviewer identities to authors unless disclosure is expressly permitted under the journal's policy.

Editors should also ensure that reviewers do not receive unnecessary identifying information about the authors.

6. Evaluation of Reviewer Reports

Editors should evaluate reviewer reports based on their substantive academic quality, rather than simply counting recommendations.

Editors should consider:

  • whether the review addresses the manuscript adequately;

  • whether comments are supported by academic reasoning;

  • whether the review identifies substantive strengths and weaknesses;

  • whether recommendations are consistent with the reviewer's comments; and

  • whether additional review is necessary.

Editors may disagree with individual reviewer recommendations when there are reasonable scholarly grounds to do so.

A reviewer recommendation is advisory and does not automatically determine the editorial decision.

7. Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief retains final authority over publication decisions.

Possible editorial decisions include:

Decision Editorial Consideration
Accept Submission The manuscript is suitable for publication and requires no substantive revision.
Minor Revision The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited corrections or clarification.
Major Revision The manuscript requires substantial theoretical, methodological, analytical, or structural revision.
Reject Submission The manuscript has fundamental problems, falls outside the journal's scope, or does not provide a sufficient scholarly contribution.

The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, authors' revisions where applicable, and the Handling Editor's recommendation.

8. Revision and Re-Review

When revision is requested, editors should ensure that authors receive clear and constructive guidance regarding the required revisions.

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • assessed by the Handling Editor;

  • returned to the original reviewers; or

  • sent to another independent reviewer where necessary.

When evaluating a revised manuscript, editors should consider whether the authors have adequately addressed the substantive concerns raised during the previous review.

Editors should avoid requiring unnecessary new revisions that were not reasonably related to the previous review.

9. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must be based primarily on the manuscript's:

  • scholarly quality;

  • originality;

  • relevance to the journal's scope;

  • methodological rigor;

  • clarity;

  • contribution to Library and Information Science; and

  • compliance with ethical and publication standards.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional pressure, political considerations, or other inappropriate factors.

Editors should not attempt to increase journal metrics by requiring authors to cite TIK ILMEU or particular editors without a legitimate scholarly reason.

10. Conflict of Interest

Editors must disclose and appropriately manage any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.

An Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor who has a conflict of interest with a manuscript must recuse themselves from the editorial process.

Examples may include manuscripts authored by:

  • the editor themselves;

  • a close collaborator;

  • a current or recent institutional colleague;

  • a person with whom the editor has a significant personal or professional relationship; or

  • an author whose relationship with the editor could reasonably compromise editorial independence.

The manuscript should be assigned to another qualified and independent editor.

11. Confidentiality

Editors must treat manuscripts, reviewer reports, author responses, and other editorial materials as confidential.

Editors must not:

  • disclose manuscript contents to unauthorized persons;

  • disclose reviewer identities;

  • use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

  • share manuscripts outside the editorial process without authorization; or

  • discuss submitted manuscripts with individuals who are not involved in the editorial process.

Confidential information must be handled securely throughout the editorial process.

12. Research and Publication Ethics

Editors should remain alert to potential concerns involving:

  • plagiarism or substantial text overlap;

  • duplicate or redundant publication;

  • fabrication or falsification of data;

  • inappropriate manipulation of figures or images;

  • unethical research practices;

  • inappropriate authorship;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • copyright concerns; and

  • other forms of research or publication misconduct.

When serious concerns arise, editors should follow the journal's Publication Ethics procedures and, where appropriate, request clarification or additional information from the authors.

Editors should not dismiss credible ethical concerns solely because they arise after a manuscript has been accepted or published.

13. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Editors may use AI tools only in ways that do not compromise the confidentiality, security, or integrity of the editorial process.

Editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished research data, reviewer reports, author identities, or other protected editorial information to public or unauthorized AI systems.

AI tools must not replace editorial judgment. The Editor-in-Chief and authorized editors remain responsible for editorial decisions and for ensuring the fairness, confidentiality, and integrity of the editorial process.

Editors should follow the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy for further requirements.

15. Communication with Authors

Editorial communication should be:

  • professional;

  • respectful;

  • clear;

  • timely; and

  • based on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

When requesting revisions, editors should distinguish between substantive requirements and optional suggestions.

Editors should not require authors to make revisions that are unrelated to the manuscript's scholarly quality or the journal's legitimate editorial requirements.

16. Editorial Decision Authority

The editorial decision structure of TIK ILMEU is as follows:

Editorial Role Responsibilities and Decision Authority
Reviewers Provide independent scholarly evaluations, comments, and recommendations. Reviewer recommendations are advisory.
Handling Editor Coordinates peer review, evaluates reviewer reports, communicates with reviewers and authors where necessary, 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.

This separation of responsibilities is intended to support editorial independence, fairness, and accountability.

17. Final Editorial Checks

Before making or recommending an editorial decision, editors should consider whether:

  • the manuscript fits the journal's scope;

  • the peer review process has been conducted appropriately;

  • reviewers have appropriate expertise;

  • conflicts of interest have been appropriately managed;

  • reviewer reports are sufficiently substantive;

  • the authors have adequately addressed required revisions;

  • ethical or research-integrity concerns have been addressed;

  • the editorial decision is consistent with the evidence and reviewer assessments; and

  • the decision can be academically justified.

18. Commitment to Editorial Integrity

Editors of TIK ILMEU are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, academic integrity, confidentiality, transparency, editorial independence, and respect for authors and reviewers.

The primary responsibility of the editorial team is to ensure that publication decisions are based on scholarly merit and that the integrity of the academic record is maintained.

These guidelines are intended to support consistent, fair, and responsible editorial practice at TIK ILMEU – Jurnal Ilmu Perpustakaan dan Informasi.