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

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe) system to support the long-term preservation and continued accessibility of its published content. LOCKSS creates a distributed archiving system among participating libraries, allowing them to maintain permanent archives of the journal for preservation and restoration purposes.

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

All published issues and articles of this journal are electronically archived and openly accessible through the Archives page.

 

Publication Ethics

This publication ethics document outlines the principles, which serves as guidelines for all parties involved in the publication of scientific work in LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal. These parties include authors, editors, reviewers, and others involved in the journal’s publication. The journal is managed by the Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, UIN Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang. These guidelines are based on the best practice recommendations for publication provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), aimed at upholding the credibility and integrity of scientific publications.

1. Ethical Principles for Journal Publishing

Manuscripts must follow academic ethical standards. LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal publishes reputable manuscripts from a wide spectrum of authors. LibTech is expected to contribute to the advancement of knowledge, improve educational quality, and benefit society. To attain these objectives, authors, editors, reviewers, and publishers must fulfill their respective roles by emphasizing honesty, transparency, and publication ethics.

2. Determination of Publishing Decisions

Determining the suitability of an article for publication, whether in print or electronic format, involves a thorough evaluation process conducted by the Editor in Chief, the editorial team, and reviewers. This process encompasses a series of checks, ranging from manuscript submission, initial assessment by an editor, and the peer-review process, to formatting and layout checks, similarity (plagiarism) screening, and verification of copyright-related aspects. The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the relevant editor, is responsible for supervising each of these phases to guarantee that publication decisions align with the journal’s standards and policies.

3. Equal Treatment and Freedom from Discrimination

The assessment of submissions for LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal should be grounded in academic eligibility, research quality, and the substantive relevance of the manuscript. Editors and reviewers must refrain from utilizing an author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, nationality, or political ideology as criteria for influencing the results of an evaluation. Each manuscript should receive an impartial evaluation, devoid of any bias related to the author’s personal characteristics. This principle is implemented to foster a publishing environment that is both inclusive and professional, ensuring the maintenance of equality.

4. Safeguarding the Confidentiality of Manuscripts

The details included in a manuscript throughout the publication process are required to remain confidential. Editors, reviewers, and publishers must maintain confidentiality regarding the content of a manuscript and any details pertaining to its evaluation, ensuring that such information is not disclosed to unauthorized parties. Regarding the blind review process, access to the manuscript and any related discussions is limited exclusively to individuals participating in the editorial evaluation. Communication concerning the manuscript’s content is strictly limited to authorized parties, primarily the editor, the designated reviewer(s), and the author, according to the evaluation procedure, while safeguarding sensitive information.

5. The Role of Reviewers in Editorial Decision-Making

Reviewers assist editors in evaluating the quality and appropriateness of manuscripts before being published. As a result, evaluations are carried out by individuals who have the requisite knowledge and expertise pertinent to the particular area of research being investigated. The assessment comments, academic analyses, and suggestions offered by reviewers form the foundation for the editor’s final decision. Moreover, the review results are conveyed to the author, establishing a basis for rectifying deficiencies, elucidating arguments, and improving the overall caliber of the manuscript.

6. Compliance with Timelines

Timeliness is essential in the commitment to maintaining an organized publication process and ensuring that authors are well-informed. Each manuscript undergoes a systematic processing approach, adhering to predefined stages and timelines, ensuring that both authors and reviewers are consistently updated throughout the entire procedure. If a designated reviewer is unable to fulfill their evaluation within the allotted time, the editor can delegate the responsibility to another reviewer possessing the requisite expertise. This policy is established to reduce delays and guarantee that the publication process adheres to the timeline set forth by the journal.

7. Objectivity in Manuscript Evaluation

All evaluation decisions must be based on established scientific criteria and applied consistently. Editors and reviewers are required to consider the quality of the methodology, the accuracy of the analysis, the relevance of the discussion, and the scientific contribution of the manuscript, without being influenced by personal interests. Evaluations must be communicated using polite, professional language focused on improving the scientific work. Reviewers are also expected to provide clear justifications for every assessment and recommendation, ensuring that both editors and authors understand the basis for the decisions made.

8. Verification and Validation of References

The validity of cited sources is critical during the article evaluation process. Reviewers should examine whether the sources support the discussion, are relevant to the research topic, and are academically reliable. The currency and accuracy of the information in the references should also be verified in accordance with the requirements of the study. Conversely, authors are obligated to ensure that every source is correctly cited and included in the references, in compliance with applicable academic writing standards.

9. Confidentiality and Prevention of Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of all information and ideas encountered during the review process. They must not use them for personal gain or the benefit of any third party. A review assignment should be declined if the reviewer has a professional, collaborative, competitive, or any other type of relationship that can potentially compromise their independence in evaluating the author, the organization, or the institution associated with the research. Furthermore, unpublished research information or materials must not be utilized by a reviewer without obtaining written permission from the author who holds the rights to such material.

10. Honesty in Reporting Research Results

Scientific manuscripts must describe the research process and the obtained results accurately, completely, and without being misleading. Authors are responsible for presenting data based on available evidence and for using references that support the scientific claims made in the article. All findings and conclusions must align with the actual research results. The fabrication of data, manipulation of results, or the intentional presentation of information that does not correspond to the facts constitutes a violation of academic ethics and is unacceptable in journal publications.

11. Availability and Retention of Research Data

During the manuscript review process, authors must be prepared to provide raw data related to the research if requested by the editor for verification purposes. Authors are also expected to facilitate access to such data in accordance with applicable regulations, while observing relevant confidentiality constraints or data protection requirements. Providing data that can be examined helps ensure consistency between the research evidence and the claims stated in the manuscript. This step also supports the evaluation and refinement of the manuscript in line with the journal’s policies.

12. Originality of Work and Prevention of Plagiarism

Each author is responsible for the originality of the manuscript submitted to the journal. The use of ideas, sentences, data, findings, or work belonging to others must be accompanied by appropriate acknowledgment of the source through proper citation. Authors are not permitted to present the work of others as if it were their own. If any violation, such as plagiarism or inaccurate citation, is discovered that contravenes the journal’s policies, the manuscript can be rejected following the established procedures. This principle aims to protect intellectual property rights and maintain trust in published scientific work.

13. Prohibition of Multiple Submissions and Publications

Authors are not permitted to submit or publish multiple manuscripts that contain essentially the same research substance in more than one journal or primary publication outlet. Simultaneous submission of a single manuscript to multiple journals is also prohibited while the manuscript is under consideration for publication. Such practices violate publication ethics, as they lead to redundant publication and obscure the scientific record. Therefore, authors must verify the status of their manuscript before submitting it to LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal.

14. Accurate Attribution of Scientific Sources

All ideas, statements, findings, or information derived from other sources must be properly acknowledged. Including references serves to strengthen the basis of an argument, demonstrate the connection between the current research and previous studies, and allow readers to trace the sources. Authors should maintain uniformity between in-text citations and the references, ensuring that all sources are presented clearly and accurately. The sources employed should be relevant to the discussion and provide substantive support for the content of the manuscript.

15. Determination of Authorship and Responsibilities

Authorship status is granted to individuals who have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the conceptualization, research design, execution of the study, or interpretation of the research findings. All parties who meet these contribution criteria should be listed as co-authors; conversely, the inclusion of names without sufficient contribution must be avoided. Each listed author is responsible for staying informed about the progress of the review process and communicating regarding any necessary revisions to the manuscript.

16. Disclosure of Risks and Involvement of Human or Animal Subjects

Research involving materials, equipment, procedures, or methods that pose specific threats must be accompanied by an adequate explanation of the potential risks involved. Authors must identify potential hazards associated with the use of specific elements to ensure that safety information is not overlooked when presenting research findings. If the research involves human or animal subjects, this aspect must also be addressed in the research report, in accordance with applicable ethical and safety regulations. The information provided must be sufficiently clear for readers to understand the characteristics and risks associated with the conduct of the research.

17. Transparency Regarding Funding Support and Interests

Authors are required to provide transparent information concerning the support received during the conduct of the research and the preparation of the manuscript. It includes sources of funding, institutional assistance, or any other form of support relevant to the completion of the research. Funding sources must be clearly stated in the manuscript, allowing readers to understand the background of the support underlying the research activities. Such disclosure is part of an effort to maintain openness and allows for the assessment of potential interests related to the research findings.

18. Handling Errors in Published Articles

Authors have an obligation to promptly notify the editor or publisher if they become aware of any fundamental errors affecting the accuracy of a published article. Once reported, the authors must work with the journal to determine an appropriate course of action based on the nature and severity of the error. It may involve issuing a correction or retracting the article, depending on the circumstances. An open and responsible approach is essential to upholding the validity of information that has become part of the scientific literature.

19. Disclosure of the Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in Writing

Authors are required to disclose the use of generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) during manuscript preparation. If no AI was applied, authors must explicitly state that no AI was employed at any stage of the writing process. If AI was utilized, such usage must be declared transparently. This declaration must specify the AI technology employed and its function, for instance, whether it was deployed for language editing, organizing ideas, correcting grammar, or improving the readability of the text. Under these guidelines, the use of AI is restricted to supporting the editing and refinement of the manuscript’s presentation; it cannot serve as a substitute for the author’s own scientific contributions, such as developing research substance, analyzing data, or drawing conclusions.

Responsibility for intellectual contributions, critical reasoning, data interpretation, and final decisions regarding the content of the article rests entirely with the authors. Authors must thoroughly review all sections of the manuscript that involved AI assistance to ensure the accuracy of the information, the consistency of the arguments, and their alignment with the research evidence. The use of such technology does not shift academic responsibility to the tools themselves. Consequently, authors remain completely accountable for the originality, validity, accuracy, and integrity of the entire scientific work submitted to the journal.

 

Screening for Plagiarism

LibTech: Library and Information Science Journal is committed to maintaining high standards of academic integrity and does not tolerate any form of plagiarism. All manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original work that has not been previously published, nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere. Prior to the review process, every submitted manuscript will undergo a similarity check using Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity score exceeding 25% will either be returned to the authors for revision or rejected by the journal, following its established editorial policy.

 

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 article, literature reviews related to Library and Information science, Case Studies and Professional Practice Articles. 

  • Original Research Articles: Reports of original empirical or conceptual research that present new findings in the field of library and information science.
  • Literature Review Articles: Critical and systematic examinations of existing literature, aimed at identifying research developments, theoretical perspectives, and knowledge gaps.
  • Conceptual and theoretical Articles: Manuscripts that develop theories, frameworks, models, or critical perspectives relevant to the field of library and information science.
  • Case Studies and Professional Practice Articles: Analyses of library services, institutional practices, information systems, or professional innovations with significant implications for the field of library and information science.

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 Library and Information science.

 

Ownership and Management

LIBTECH: Library and Information Science Journal is published by Department of Library and Information Science , Faculty of Science and Technology, 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 library and information science.

Publisher: Department of Library and Information Science, Faculty of Science and Technology, 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.