Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

Focus and Scope

LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal disseminates scientific research within the field of library and information science. The scope of the journal includes:

  • Library Science
  • Information Science
  • Documentation
  • Records and Archives Management
  • Knowledge Management
  • Information Literacy
  • Information Behavior
  • Information Management Technology
  • Data Science
  • Data Mining
  • Bibliometrics

As well as other fields of science related to the scope.


 

Section Policies

LIBTECH: LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE JOURNAL

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted for publication must represent original research and be devoid of any instances of plagiarism. It is highly recommended that authors assess the similarity level of their manuscripts using plagiarism-detection software prior to submission. Alongside this self-evaluation, the editors will also evaluate the manuscript’s similarity level using Turnitin software. This step is crucial in the manuscript selection, guaranteeing that all submissions comply with standards of academic integrity and are devoid of plagiarism.

Each manuscript submitted to the journal is subjected to a single-blind review process. In this method, the reviewers possess knowledge of the authors’ identities, whereas the identities of the reviewers are kept hidden from the authors. Each manuscript undergoes evaluation by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers, who offer assessments and constructive feedback aimed at improving the quality and scientific substance of a manuscript.

The evaluation spans two to four weeks. Upon completion of the review process, accepted articles are organized for publication by the Editor in Chief. The sequence of publication is influenced by various criteria, including the acceptance date, the distribution of authors’ affiliations, the alignment of the topic with the specific issue’s theme, and the recommendations provided by the reviewers.

 

Open Access Policy

This journal implements an open access policy, allowing all readers to access every published article immediately and at no cost. This policy is rooted in the understanding that open access to research findings facilitates the broader dissemination of scientific information, enhances the exchange of knowledge, and fosters the advancement of science on a global scale.

 

Archiving

Libtech: Library and Information Science Journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

The LOCKSS Publisher Manifest page for this journal is available at: https://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/libtech/gateway/lockss

 

Publication Ethics

This statement clarifies the ethical behavior of all stakeholders involved in the act of publishing a manuscript in LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal such as writers, editors, and reviewers, which are managed by Program Studi Perpustakaan dan Ilmu Informasi, Fakultas Sains dan Teknologi, UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang.

This statement based on COPE's Best Practice standards

1. Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication

Ethics is an aspect that needs to be considered before publishing a manuscript. LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal publishes manuscripts from accountable various author sources. It is important for the development of science in order to participate in improving the quality of education and advancing public life. Therefore, journal publication ethics need to be considered and carried out by writers, journal editors, reviewers, publishers and the public.

2. Publication Decision

LibTech: The Journal of Library and Information Science has a policy before publication, both printed and online, which is to carry out a discussion and review process between the Chief Editor and Editorial members as well as reviewer. This includes all processes from manuscript submission, editor checking, reviewer checking, layout checking, plagiarism, and copyright checking. Everything is under the supervision of the Editor in Chief and other authorized Editors.

3. Non-Discrimination

In each publishing process of LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal, editors and reviewers evaluate manuscripts for the scientific content of the manuscripts without regard to differences in race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors. It has been done to keep the ethical principle of publishing LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal which is non-discrimination.

4. Confidentiality

LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal has highly respected the confidentiality of manuscript, where editors and reviewers are not allowed to reveal a lot of information about a manuscript that has been submitted. Every submitted manuscript has been strictly kept confidential by the editors, reviewers and publishers. Considering the blind-reviewer system, every manuscript that has been sent to the reviewer can only be discussed with the editors and author.

5. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Publishing manuscripts in LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal involves reviewers in their field, the decisions of the reviewers contribute to the editor's decisions for each manuscript. LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal uses a blind-review process, in which the results of the reviewers are communicated back to the authors to improve the quality of the authors' research.

6. Timeliness

LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal is very concerned about the timeliness of publications and information to the authors. Each manuscript submitted to the LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal is informed to the authors and reviewers to be processed according to the basic provisions. If the reviewer does not carry out his duties on time, the editor decides to replace another reviewer with a higher quality. In order to punctuality publishing we stay consistent as set.

7. Standards of Objectivity

Every manuscript that is submitted to the LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal, editors and reviewers are required to evaluate the manuscript against the established standards. However, review comments from editors and reviewers need to respect and appreciate the author. Reviewers are required to be consistent in their decisions and recommendations to editors and authors.

8. Acknowledgment of Sources

The reviewers are required to pay attention to every source that comes from all manuscripts submitted to LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal, where the manuscript is submitted by the author through the editor. Each source needs to be verified and updated, and acknowledged through a list of trusted references.

9. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Specific information or ideas obtained through peer-reviews must be kept confidential and not used for personal gain. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts for which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with the authors, companies, or other institutions related on research. Unpublished material disclosed in the submitted manuscript will not be used without the written consent of the author.

10. Reporting Standard

The author of the research report must present an accurate report of the work that has been done. The data presented contains reliable reference sources and is contained in the manuscript. Fraudulent or intentionally inaccurate statements are unethical and unacceptable behavior.

11. Data Access and Retention

Authors are required to provide raw data with respect to a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data. This is to facilitate the refinement of the author's manuscript in accordance with the rules of LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal.

12. Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that they have written the entire original work, and if the authors have used the work or words of another person, it must be properly cited. If some problems are found related to citing and or plagiarism in the author's work, the manuscript is automatically rejected.

13. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publications

An author may not publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or major publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time is an unethical and unacceptable publishing behavior

14. Acknowledgment of Sources

Each manuscript submitted must provide acknowledgment of appropriate sources and be able to add value to the manuscript, all such acknowledgments must be clearly stated in the list of references.

15. Research Authorship

Authors of the manuscript should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, conduct, or interpretation of the reported research. All who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Authors listed in the manuscript have a responsibility to keep the co-authors posted with the review process. If accepted, all authors are required to provide a signed statement that the research work is their original research work.

16. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or tools that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify them in the manuscript.

17. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscripts everything that supports the completion of their research. All supporting financial sources for research should be disclosed.

18. Fundamental Errors in Published Works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his published work, it is the author's obligation to immediately notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to withdraw or correct the manuscript. 

19. Declaration of Generative AI and AI-Asisted Technologies in The Writing Process

The authors declare that during the preparation of this manuscript, generative AI and AI-assisted technologies (such as ChatGPT or similar tools) were used [state how AI was used, e.g., for language editing, idea structuring, grammar correction, etc.]. These tools were employed solely to assist the authors in enhancing the clarity and coherence of the text, and no AI tool was used to generate original scientific content, perform data analysis, or draw conclusions.

All intellectual contributions, critical analysis, interpretation of data, and final decisions regarding the manuscript were made by the authors. The authors bear full responsibility for the integrity and accuracy of the work.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal strongly opposes plagiarism. LibTech is committed to block plagiarism, including self-plagiarism.

Authors must ensure that they have written a completely original work, and if the author has used the work and/or words of others that have been cited or quoted properly. Manuscript found with such problems are automatically rejected. Also, the article must have not been published everywhere. The author also respects the writing in the LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal from excessive publication, duplication, or fraud.

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal will use Turnitin's originality checking software as the tool in detecting similarities of texts in article manuscripts and the final version articles ready for publication. A maximum of 30% of similarities is allowed for the submitted papers. Should we find more than 30% of the similarity index, the article will be returned to the author for correction and resubmission.

 

Review Guidelines

Review Guidelines

General

  1. Give comments on the incorrect parts/ need changes
  2. Comment on the right side of the incorrect parts/need changes

Detail

  1. Title: Effectivity, Spesification, and Clarity
  2. Abstract: Describe the essence of the article
  3. Keywords: Define the field, topic, research issue, that are covered by article
  4. Pendahuluan: Up-to-date, Originality, Topic Relevance, Compatibility, important reason of the research object
  5. Research Method: Must emphasize on the procedure and data analysis for empirical study.
  6. Results and Discussion: recent finding, relevance with the related researchers., and scientific contribution from finding/ idea for development of practice and knowledge.
  7. Conclusion: Logical, Valid, Brief and Clear.
  8. Suggestion: For practical treatment, development of new theory, and further research
  9. Picture/Table: In the centre position, uncropped, good quality to see, Picture/ Table Title is written with capital.
  10. References: Minimum 15 references in which 80% are from journal articles which are published in the last 15 years

Complete Manuscript Review Process

  1. Writing: Is the manuscript easy to follow? Does it have logical development and clear organization?
  2. Is the manuscript easy to understand?
  3. Pay attention to the big problem with mechanic, grammar, spelling, and punctuation? (If there are only small mistakes, give notes in the incorrect parts to inform writers. If there are consistent mistakes in almost all parts, just choose one or two as examples: do not edit all parts
  4. Abbreviation: Must be used wisely so that the reader do not feel difficult to remember what is represented by the abbreviation.
  5. Follow the style, format and other journal rule.
  6. Citation must be provided to give information-based evidence from outer source.

Decision Making

  • Accept Submission
  • Revision Required
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Resubmit Elsewhere
  • Decline Submission

 

Correction and Retraction Policy

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal is committed to maintaining an accurate and trustworthy scholarly record. When errors or integrity concerns arise after publication, the journal will assess the evidence and take appropriate, proportionate action.

Corrections, expressions of concern, and retractions serve to inform readers and protect the integrity of the literature. These actions are not intended as punishment, and retraction does not necessarily imply deliberate misconduct.

1. Reporting an Error or Concern

Authors must notify the editorial office promptly when they discover a significant error or integrity concern in their published work. Readers, reviewers, and other parties may also report concerns.

Reports should be submitted through the journal’s Contact page and should include:

  • The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
  • A clear description of the error or concern.
  • The affected passages, figures, tables, references, or other content.
  • Supporting evidence and, where possible, the proposed correction.
  • Any relevant competing interests of the person reporting the concern.

Anonymous reports will be assessed when they contain sufficiently specific and credible information. There is no fixed expiry date for reporting a substantive problem with a published article.

2. Corrections

A correction is appropriate when an error affects the accuracy, clarity, attribution, or interpretation of part of an article, but the principal findings and overall conclusions remain reliable. Errors introduced by either the authors or the journal may require correction.

Examples include:

  • Incorrect numerical values, labels, quotations, or references that do not invalidate the main conclusions.
  • Errors in tables or figures that can be corrected without undermining the study.
  • Omitted or inaccurate funding or conflict-of-interest declarations.
  • Incorrect author details or justified changes to attribution following appropriate assessment.
  • Production errors that materially affect the published content.

The correction notice will identify the article, explain the error, provide the corrected information, and state any implications for the findings or conclusions.

Minor typographical or formatting errors that do not affect meaning, attribution, discoverability, or interpretation may be addressed without a separate formal notice. Substantive amendments must not be made silently.

 

Conflict of Interest Policy

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal requires authors, reviewers, and editors to disclose interests or relationships that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, the conduct, interpretation, assessment, or publication of scholarly work.

Disclosure enables the journal to assess and manage potential conflicts transparently. The existence of a competing interest does not automatically establish misconduct or make a manuscript unsuitable for publication.

 

Manuscript Type

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal accepts original research articles, conceptual and theoretical analyses, and literature reviews related to Islamic education management. 

All submitted manuscripts must be original, relevant to the journal’s focus and scope, and prepared in accordance with the journal’s author guidelines. Each submission undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine its suitability for the journal. Manuscripts that meet the initial requirements may proceed to peer review to evaluate their academic quality, originality, methodological or theoretical rigor, and contribution to the advancement of knowledge in Islamic education management.

 

Ownership and Management

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal is published by Department of Islamic Education Management, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang, Indonesia.

The journal operates within the university's academic publishing environment and serves as a scholarly platform for disseminating empirical research and community-service articles in economics and business.

Publisher: Department of Islamic Education Management, Faculty of Education and Teacher Training, Universitas Islam Negeri Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang, Indonesia

Journal website: https://ejournal.uin-malang.ac.id/index.php/libtech/

Institutional website: https://uin-malang.ac.id/

 

Allegations of Research Misconduct

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal takes concerns about research and publication integrity seriously. This policy explains how allegations concerning submitted manuscripts and published articles are reported, assessed, and addressed.

Allegations are considered fairly, confidentially where possible, and on the basis of evidence. An allegation does not itself establish misconduct. The journal distinguishes deliberate misrepresentation from honest error and legitimate scholarly disagreement, while addressing any resulting problems in the scholarly record.

 

Post-Publication Discussion

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal welcomes substantive discussion of its published articles. Readers and authors may raise questions, offer evidence-based criticism, propose alternative interpretations, or identify errors that require editorial attention.

Publication does not close scholarly debate. The journal supports respectful, transparent discussion that advances understanding and helps maintain the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

1. Scope of Discussion

Post-publication discussion should relate directly to an identifiable article published in the journal. Relevant contributions may address:

  • The interpretation of findings, sources, or theoretical arguments.
  • Research design, methods, analytical procedures, or limitations.
  • Relevant evidence or scholarship that may affect the article’s conclusions.
  • Alternative explanations or comparative perspectives.
  • Factual inaccuracies, unclear statements, or questions about reproducibility.
  • Ethical or publication integrity concerns requiring editorial examination.

Disagreement with an article’s theoretical position, religious interpretation, or conclusions is not by itself evidence of error or misconduct. Critical discussion should explain its reasoning and engage with the published argument fairly.

2. How to Submit a Comment

Comments should be sent to the editorial office through the journal’s Contact page. Use the subject line “Post-Publication Discussion: [Article Title]”.

Please include:

  • The article title, author names, and DOI or article URL.
  • The commenter’s name, affiliation where applicable, and contact details.
  • A clear explanation of the point being raised, identifying relevant passages, pages, tables, or figures.
  • Supporting references, evidence, or analysis where appropriate.
  • Any relevant conflicts of interest.
  • Whether the submission is intended for public discussion or confidential editorial consideration.

Comments should be concise, focused, and sufficiently detailed to allow assessment. There is no fixed expiry date for raising a substantive concern about a published article.

Individuals reporting sensitive concerns may request confidentiality. Anonymous reports will be considered when they contain specific and credible information, although anonymous allegations are not automatically eligible for publication as scholarly commentary.

3. Editorial Assessment

An editor without a relevant conflict of interest will assess the submission for relevance, accuracy, clarity, supporting evidence, and scholarly value. The journal may request clarification or revision and may consult an independent specialist when necessary.

Comments must address the work rather than attack individuals. The journal will not publish harassment, discriminatory language, unsupported personal accusations, promotional material, or unnecessary disclosure of confidential information.

A critical or unfavourable assessment of a published article will not be rejected merely because it challenges the authors or the journal. Equally, submission of a comment does not guarantee publication.

Where a message combines inappropriate wording with a credible substantive concern, the editor may request revisions to the wording while examining the underlying evidence separately.

4. Author Responses

Authors will normally be invited to respond to substantive comments concerning their article. The editorial office will provide the relevant points and specify a reasonable response period appropriate to their complexity.

Responses should address the issues directly, provide supporting evidence where needed, and acknowledge any established errors or limitations. Responses are subject to the same standards of relevance, accuracy, and respectful language as the original comment.

Authors may request additional time with an explanation. Failure to respond does not establish that a criticism is correct and does not automatically prevent publication of a comment that meets the journal’s standards. Authors do not have a veto over legitimate scholarly criticism.

5. Publication of Discussions

Accepted contributions may be published as a Comment, Author Response, or Editorial Note, as appropriate. These are post-publication correspondence categories and are distinguished from original research articles and scholarly review articles.

Published discussions will identify and link to the article concerned. Where feasible, the article page will also link to the discussion so that readers can follow the exchange.

Comments and responses undergo editorial assessment and may receive independent expert review where needed. They will not be described as externally peer-reviewed unless that process has taken place.

The journal may publish a comment and response together or separately. Further exchanges may be considered when they contribute material new evidence or analysis. Repetitive exchanges may be closed with an explanation.

Discussion on external scholarly platforms may also inform editorial assessment. Readers seeking formal action should notify the editorial office directly, as the journal cannot guarantee that it will identify every discussion elsewhere.

6. Errors and Integrity Concerns

Comments identifying possible errors or misconduct will be assessed under the journal’s relevant policies. Confidential allegations will not automatically be published as discussion contributions.

  • Specific errors may require a correction when the article’s principal findings remain reliable.
  • Significant unresolved concerns may require an expression of concern while further examination is undertaken.
  • Established problems affecting the reliability or ethical integrity of the work may require retraction or other appropriate action.

Publishing a comment or an author response does not replace a formal correction or other editorial notice when the published record requires amendment.

Decisions will follow the journal’s Allegations of Research Misconduct and Correction and Retraction policies. Scholarly disagreement alone is not a basis for retraction.

7. Communication and Appeals

The editorial office will acknowledge submissions where contact details are available and communicate its decision or requests for further information. Assessment time depends on the complexity of the issues and the need for author responses or independent advice.

A person who believes that a decision involved a factual error, a material procedural problem, or overlooked evidence may request reconsideration through the Contact page. The request should identify the decision and provide specific reasons and supporting information.

Appeals will be considered by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the disputed decision and has no relevant conflict of interest. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief will be referred to the publisher for independent handling.

 

Authorship and Contributorship Criteria

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal recognises authorship as both scholarly credit and responsibility for published work. The journal uses the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) to describe contributions transparently and consistently.

CRediT comprises 14 contributor roles and was approved as an ANSI/NISO standard in 2022. It complements the traditional author list by identifying the activities undertaken by individual contributors.

CRediT roles describe contributions; they do not determine authorship eligibility. All named authors must satisfy the journal’s minimum authorship criteria below. Contributions by individuals who do not meet those criteria should be recognised separately.

1. Minimum Criteria for Authorship

Each person listed as an author must meet all four of the following requirements:

  1. Substantial scholarly contribution: contribute substantially to the conception or design of the study, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of its data, sources, or evidence. For theoretical or interpretive research, this may include developing the central argument or analytical framework.
  2. Intellectual contribution to the manuscript: draft the article or critically revise it for important intellectual content.
  3. Final approval: approve the manuscript for submission and the final version to be published.
  4. Accountability: agree to take responsibility for the work and cooperate in investigating and resolving questions concerning its accuracy or integrity.

All individuals who meet these requirements must be included as authors. Individuals who have made substantial research contributions should be given a reasonable opportunity to participate in drafting or critical revision and final approval.

Assignment of one or more CRediT roles does not automatically qualify a person for authorship. There is no minimum number of CRediT roles that guarantees authorship. Funding, supervision, institutional position, or administrative support alone is insufficient.

2. The 14 CRediT Contributor Roles

Authors should use the following role names when reporting contributions. The descriptions below are concise adaptations for this journal; the official CRediT descriptors provide the authoritative definitions.

CRediT roles and their meanings
Contributor roleDescription
ConceptualizationShaping the study’s overarching ideas and objectives.
Data curationOrganising, documenting, cleaning, and preserving data for use and reuse.
Formal analysisApplying formal analytical or synthesis techniques to research data.
Funding acquisitionSecuring financial support for the research.
InvestigationConducting research activities and gathering data or evidence.
MethodologyDesigning research methods or models.
Project administrationCoordinating research planning and implementation.
ResourcesSupplying research materials, equipment, or analytical resources.
SoftwareDeveloping, implementing, or testing research code and software.
SupervisionProviding research leadership, oversight, and mentorship.
ValidationChecking the reproducibility or replicability of research outputs.
VisualizationCreating visual presentations of research findings or data.
Writing – original draftProducing the initial manuscript, including substantive translation.
Writing – review & editingCritically reviewing and revising the manuscript within the research team.

Role names and adapted descriptions are attributed to CRediT / NISO. Descriptions have been shortened for this policy.

3. Assigning and Confirming Roles

  • Assign only roles that accurately describe work actually performed.
  • One contributor may hold several roles, and several contributors may share the same role.
  • Not every role applies to every study; unused roles should be omitted.
  • The corresponding author coordinates role assignment, but each contributor must have an opportunity to review and confirm their assigned roles.
  • Where useful, shared roles may be qualified as lead, equal, or supporting contributions. These qualifiers do not determine authorship eligibility or author order.
  • Review contribution statements after substantial revisions to ensure that they remain accurate.

Contributions should be interpreted in relation to the actual research design. For example, conducting interviews or gathering archival evidence may constitute Investigation, while managing a documented collection of research materials may constitute Data curation.

Using an existing word processor, reference manager, or analysis application does not by itself constitute Software. Routine proofreading should not be presented as substantive intellectual revision.

The Writing – review & editing role describes contributions within the author or research team. It does not make journal peer reviewers or handling editors authors of the manuscript.

4. CRediT Author Statement

Every manuscript must include a section entitled “Author Contributions (CRediT)”. List each author’s full name followed by the applicable CRediT roles. The statement must be agreed by all authors.

During double-blind review, provide the identifying statement in a separate title-page file or other non-review submission material. It must be incorporated into the final manuscript before the References.

Example: multi-author article

Author Contributions (CRediT)

Author A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing – original draft.

Author B: Data curation, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Author C: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing.

All authors approved the final manuscript and agree to be accountable for the work.

Example: single-author article

Author Contributions (CRediT)

Author A: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

The author approved the final manuscript and takes responsibility for the work.

These examples are illustrative. Authors must replace the sample names and select roles that reflect their actual contributions rather than reproduce the examples unchanged.

5. Author Responsibilities

All authors must:

  • Meet the minimum authorship criteria and consent to being named.
  • Provide an accurate account of their contributions.
  • Approve the submission, substantive revisions, and final version.
  • Ensure appropriate attribution of sources and originality of their work.
  • Know which co-authors are responsible for other contributions and have confidence in their integrity.
  • Disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding, and AI use.
  • Protect confidential information and meet applicable research ethics requirements.
  • Cooperate with editorial inquiries and report significant errors or integrity concerns promptly.

The corresponding author manages communication with the journal, confirms agreement on the author list and contribution statement, and ensures that editorial decisions and reviewer comments are shared with co-authors.

Corresponding authorship does not automatically indicate the largest contribution or transfer the responsibilities of other authors to one person.

6. Non-Author Contributions

Contributors who do not meet all authorship criteria should be recognised in the Acknowledgements, with their permission. Their contributions may be described using applicable CRediT roles or a clear narrative explanation.

Funding acquisition, resources, supervision, project administration, or technical assistance may be important contributions without independently qualifying a person for authorship.

Contributors must not be excluded from authorship merely because they are students, research assistants, community collaborators, or locally based researchers. Eligibility depends on their actual contributions and fulfilment of the authorship criteria.

Research participation alone does not establish authorship. Acknowledgements must respect consent, confidentiality, and any commitments to protect participants’ identities.

7. Author Order and Authorship Changes

Authors must agree collectively on the author order before submission, taking account of their contributions and disciplinary conventions. CRediT does not prescribe author order, and counting assigned roles is not a substitute for agreement on the significance of contributions.

Requests to add or remove authors, change their order, or change the corresponding author after submission must be submitted to the editorial office with:

  • A reasoned explanation for the proposed change.
  • An updated author list and CRediT statement.
  • Written agreement from all affected authors, including anyone being added or removed.
  • Confirmation that all listed authors meet the authorship criteria.

Changes require editorial approval and must not be introduced silently during revision or proof correction. The journal may pause processing while a request is assessed.

Post-publication changes require formal assessment and, where justified, a published correction. If agreement cannot be obtained, the matter is treated as a dispute.

8. Authorship Integrity and AI

The journal prohibits:

  • Gift, guest, or honorary authorship: including individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria.
  • Ghost authorship: omitting eligible authors or concealing substantive contributions that should be disclosed.
  • Coercive authorship: requiring inclusion through authority or pressure without qualifying contributions.
  • Purchased or traded authorship: buying, selling, offering, or exchanging positions on the author list.
  • Unauthorised authorship: naming individuals without their knowledge and approval.
  • False contribution statements: assigning CRediT roles for activities not performed.

For articles derived from theses or dissertations, supervisory status alone does not establish authorship. Students’ qualifying contributions must be recognised accurately.

AI tools must not be listed as authors or as human contributors in the CRediT author statement. AI use must be disclosed separately under the journal’s AI Policy. Human authors remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, confidentiality, and integrity of all AI-assisted work.

9. Authorship Disputes

Authorship or contributorship concerns should be reported through the journal’s Contact page, identifying the manuscript or article and supplying relevant explanations and supporting evidence.

The editorial office may request contribution records, written agreements, or clarification from the parties. Review or publication may be paused while a dispute remains unresolved.

Editors do not adjudicate conflicting accounts of research contributions that require institutional investigation. Unresolved disputes may be referred to the relevant institutions or research integrity bodies.

Depending on the evidence, the journal may require amendments, reject a submission, or issue an appropriate post-publication notice. An authorship dispute alone does not automatically warrant retraction; action will reflect the findings and their implications for the published record.