Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of New Librarianship (JoNL) Peer Review Guidelines

JoNL is a free, open-access journal committed to equity, diversity, and plurality of opinions. In addition to making scholarship freely accessible to all readers, the journal publishes works created by authors from all backgrounds, drawn from all types of libraries and information centers. A central aim of the journal is to challenge long-held assumptions within the library and information science (LIS) field. To this end, authors are encouraged to submit works that meaningfully interrogate structures and practices to engender and advance a sense of equity, fairness, and justice within librarianship.

New librarianship commands a call to action and the JoNL provides an outlet that mixes both traditional and emerging forms of scholarly and professional communications that forge innovative paths shared and led by the LIS profession. Our goal is to provide a publishing venue for innovative and interdisciplinary scholarship that extends beyond the narrow scope of existing LIS journals.

Our Review Model

JoNL utilizes a double-anonymous peer review model. All submissions are anonymised and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the entire process. Reviewer comments are shared with the authors as well as reviewer-edited submission copies, if the reviewer submits them. It is the reviewer’s responsibility to ensure their comments are anonymous. When uploading an edited draft of a submission, reviewers must ensure their comments are anonymous and do not have their name or account listed. 

Reviewer Expectations

Timeliness

If you are able to accept the review, please be aware of, and adhere to, the schedule for returning the review. Reviews are due approximately one month after the reviewer agrees to the assignment. If you need more time, please contact the manuscript editor or the communications editor at newlibsjournal@gmail.com. If edits and an additional round of reviews are requested, you will receive that second round once revisions are submitted. If you are unable to do a second round, please let us know. 

Conflict of Interest

If you are able to determine who the author is because you know of the project, research, author, or institution(s), please let the manuscript editor or the communications editor at newlibsjournal@gmail.com know and we will remove you from the review. 

Feedback

Assessing the strengths, weaknesses, and quality of manuscripts must be thoughtful, constructive, and fair. The double-anonymous review format and the confidential comments section should not invite comments based on malice and/or unnecessary or mean critiques. Although the author may have a different approach to the topic than what you perceive, please avoid reproaching the author for their choices. We have requested your expertise in reviewing the manuscript and we work with the expectation of collegiality, critical analysis, and kindness in assessment. 

Content vs. Editing

As the subject expert, we are thankful that you are sharing your time and expertise. As a reviewer, you are not responsible for line editing the manuscript. If, however, grammatical concerns detract from the argument, structure, methods, etc., please note that in your general comments.

Questions

If you have any questions about the review process, a specific manuscript, or other concerns, please email the editor in charge of the manuscript or the communications editor, newlibsjournal@gmail.com. 

Reviewer Instructions

Once you accept the submission and the timeline for returning the review, please read the manuscript with the “Review Criteria” as your guiding principles. 

Review Criteria

Content

• Lit Review: Is there a Lit Review? Does the author illustrate robust research?
• Objectives: Are the objectives clear; are they accomplished?
• Content: Is the analysis thorough?
• Argument: Is the argument compelling? Even if you disagree with the argument, is it sound and well-made?

Methods

• Methodology: Is there a methods section? What is the method? Is it clearly explained?
• Results: Is there a results section? Is it clear?
• Conclusion: Is there a conclusion? Is it clear and compelling?

Technical

• Structure: Does the abstract adequately summarize the article's content? Are illustrations and figures legible and do they complement/augment the text? Are captions succinct yet complete?
• Organization: Does the organization of the argument make sense and follow a clear, methodical progression?
• Clarity: Is the paper written in clear, grammatical English, in a style that is easy to understand?
• References: Are the cited references correctly formatted?

Impact

• Application/ Impact- Does the article contribute knowledge or practical examples that will inform/improve others’ practice or education? 
• Originality- Is this an original argument?

Strengths and Weakness

Recommendation (seen by author and JoNL editors)

Accept, Revisions Requested, Revise and Resubmit, Decline

General Comments (seen by author and JoNL editors)

Confidential Comments (seen only by JoNL editorial board members)

Sources:

• The Journal of Open Educational Resources in Higher Education Open Peer Review Guidelines
• Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship Review Criteria