- Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan
- Publication Ethics
- Article Processing Charge
Focus and Scope
Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan receives manuscripts from both original and literature reviews in the field of library and information science.
- Library Management
- Archieve Management
- Information Management
- Information Society
- Information Behaviour
- Information Policy
- Information and Disability
- Knowledge Management
- ICT in Library
- Digital Library
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
Peer Review Process
Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is open access, peer-reviewed and scientific journal published by Department of Information and Library Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga. The objective of Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is to publish outstanding and original articles which advance the theoretical understanding of, promote and report empirical research about the widest range of library and information science topics. The journal encourages and welcomes, submission of papers which report findings using, result study, literature study, and book review. The manuscripts will be reviewed using the double blind peer review method which prevent neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Desk Review. At the desk review stage, manuscripts will be examined to ensure that they have met the writing guideline, focus, and scope with excellent academic quality. If they do not meet the conditions, the author will be given the opportunity to revise their manuscript according to the given criteria. However, there is also the possibility that the manuscript will be directly rejected.
Double Blind Peer review. When the manuscript has passed the desk review stage, it will then be delivered to two reviewers who are experts in the field of the submitted manuscript. The review process will be done within 3 weeks. Manuscripts that did not successfully pass the desk review process will not proceess to this stage.
Reviewer’s decision. The reviewers will provide the following recommendations:
Accepted; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.
Accepted with minor revisions; means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns.
Accepted with major revisions; means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised.
Rejected; means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication or the given reviews relate to very basic issues.
The reviewer’s decision will be considered by the Board of Editors to determine the ensuing process of the manuscript.
Revision Stage. Once the manuscript has been received with notations of minor or major revisions, it will be returned to the author with a review summary form. For manuscripts accepted with major revisions, authors are allotted 3 weeks to revise. Whereas for manuscripts accepted with minor revisions, 1 week is allotted for revision. When returning the revised manuscript, the author is required to fill in and attach the review summary form.
Final decision. At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author did not seriously conduct the revisions necessary.
Proofread. Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo a proofreading process to maintain linguistic quality.
Publication Confirmation. At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical error found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is given, the Editor will process the manuscript for online publication on the website as well as print publication.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
This journal utilizes the CLOCKSS 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.
Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan
Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is open access, peer-reviewed and scientific journal published by Department of Information and Library Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga. The objective of Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is to publish outstanding and original articles which advance the theoretical understanding of, and promote and report empirical research about the widest range of library and information science topics. The journal encourages, and welcomes, submission of papers which report findings using, result study, literature study, and book review. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Ethical Guidelines For Journal Publication
Please complete and return this form via email, and retaining a copy for your records.
Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is open access, peer-reviewed and scientific journal published by Department of Information and Library Science, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Universitas Airlangga. The objective of Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is to publish outstanding and original articles which advance the theoretical understanding promote and report empirical research about the widest range of library and information science topics. The journal encourages and welcomes, submission of papers which report findings using, result study, literature study, and book review. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions.
Duties of Authors
1. Reporting Standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
2. Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
3. Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and it is unacceptable.
4. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, it must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
6. Authorship of The Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors (so its mean that manuscript at least have author and co author). Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
7. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
8. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published works, it is the author’s responsibility to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with them to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learned from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the author obliges to promptly retract, correct, or provide evidence to the editor who’s in charge of correcting the original paper.
Duties of Editors
1. Publication Decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed Palimpsest: Jurnal Ilmu Informasi dan Perpustakaan is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
2. Fair Play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
5. Involvement and Cooperation in Investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and with other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, and institutions connected to the papers.
Article Processing Charge
Article Publication & Processing is free of charge.
To avoid plagiarism, all submissions are screened using Turnitin software before undergoing the review processes. Plagiarism-free works should match these requirements:
- Writing that quotes other peoples's writings (by quoting indirectly) that has been well paraphrased, by making own words, instead of performing copy and paste or typing the source word-by-word, and write down the reading sources according to the rules of scientific writing.
- Writing with the direct quotation, by quoting the same words as the original copies should apply quotation marks (for writing that less than 40 words). If the quote consists of over than 40 words, the paragraphs should be notched and apply different font size.
- Mentioning the source of other people's ideas that are being used. Whether from published or unpublished writing, both oral or written sources in any form of media