Learned Publishing

Cover image for Vol. 30 Issue 1

Edited By: Pippa Smart

Impact Factor: 1.053

ISI Journal Citation Reports © Ranking: 2015: 39/86 (Information Science & Library Science)

Online ISSN: 1741-4857

Guide for Reviewers

All articles are peer reviewed – both by the editors and (for any original research or reviews) by external specialists. Both the editors and the authors greatly appreciate the useful feedback we receive from reviewers. Reviews are managed and submitted online via the ScholarOne submission system.

Blinding or disclosure
By default author names are revealed to reviewers but reviewer names are withheld from the authors (single-blind). However we encourage reviewers to reveal their names – do this by adding your name in the “Comments for the author” section. Authors appreciate knowing who reviewed and it helps them frame suitable responses. (Note that authors are offered the option to withhold their names from reviewers, and a few select this option.)

“let me say how much I appreciated unblinded peer review process, which really helped me, in part because I found myself to be more receptive of the critiques and suggestions, knowing who was offering them.” Author, October 2015

Why review?
Reviewing provides you with privileged access to research results and opinions, and allows you to improve and inform articles that are subsequently published. After review all comments are sent (anonymously) to all reviewers and these can provide additional information on the topic and allow you to see differing views that can sometimes be enlightening!

What would we like you to look for?
When you review an article, please bear our readership in mind. The journal is aimed at everyone involved in scholarly communication and publishing but our main focus is on publishing and dissemination rather than the research and authorship of scholarly information (although of course they overlap). Our readership is wide and covers areas such as customer service, production, editorial, review, marketing, management and strategy, technology – not every article will suit every reader but each should satisfy a reasonable percentage of readership.

Please consider the following questions when reviewing an article:

• Is the article useful to scholarly publishers?
• Is the information new or is it an innovative synthesis of already-known information?
• Is the article clear and concise?
• If the article reports original research is the methodology logical?
• Are the conclusions supported by the results and discussion?
• Do you think the article is interesting?
• You may disagree with the opinions of the author, but are their views well-argued?
• Does the author have an obvious bias that is affecting the article?
• Is there any part of the article that you think could/should be improved?
• Do you have any concerns about the article? (e.g. results too good to be true)

More pragmatic issues
It would also be helpful if you could comment on the following:
• Is the title of the article appropriate?
• Is the abstract/key points a good summary of the article’s important message?
• Is the language good enough for publication?
• Is the article well referenced – does the author cite relevant information sources?
• Is the article suitably illustrated?

Please remember that reviewers have privileged access to articles, so we ask that you respect the authors’ confidentiality and do not disclose any information about the article prior to publication.