About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Ibersid: an international journal on information and documentation systems is an twice-a-year open-access arbitred open-access international journal devoted to information and knowledge management from a systemic and interdisciplinary perspective. It is the scientific communication tool of Ibersid, an international network with presence in Africa, America and Europe, whose office is in Zaragoza (Spain), where it organizes its annual conferences (http://www.ibersid.org).
The journal publishes research articles that contribute original knowledge to the state of the art, as well as state-of-the-art articles, reviews and informed opinions, provided they are based on a thorough review of the state of the art.
Peer Review Process
Introduction
The basic review procedure in the journal is similar to other learned journals. The journal follows the double-blind peer-review system, in which reviewers do not know the name of the authors and vice versa. However, some specific adjustments have been made here, taking into account the specific characteristics of the subject field of the journal and its readers.
Aims
The aim of the refereeing process is to ensure that the good papers are rapidly accepted; that those manuscripts that are susceptible to being accepted are improved, by correcting their errors and filling gaps; and that those ones that are judged inadequate for the journal because of their subject or quality are rejected, redirecting them to more appropriate publications or providing the author with suggestions for the improvement or reorientation of his or her work.
The reviewing procedure should be transparent to the authors of the papers, for whom the reviewer must try to be helpful and fair; but the referee should also be responsible to the readers and the other authors competing for the journal space; and, in a more general perspective, to the editorial aims, the scientific community and the values of society.
Procedure
For its publication, each article requires the favourable opinion of at least two referees; and for each brief note, at least one.
If the Editor considers that the article falls within the aims and scope of the journal -which are published both in each printed number and on the web page of the journal-, he sends it to two reviewers of his choosing -or more, if it should be necessary due to the interdisciplinary nature of the paper. The reviewers can be members of the Scientific Council, or expert external referees proposed by the members of the Scientific Council, the Editor or the authors. The reviewers are elected according to their subject of expertise and the number of articles that they have evaluated during the year, in order to ensure that they are not being overused.
If the Editor determines without any doubt that the subject of the paper is outside the scope of the journal, he returns the paper to the author with a suitable explanation and, if possible, with a suggestion about a more appropriate journal. In this way, both the time of the author and the reviewers is saved.
The rapidness of the reviewing process is a critical aspect. For this reason, the Editor will ask the referees to send their assessment back within two weeks or, if not possible, to offer an apology and return the manuscript to the Editor. However, if the reviewer does neither of these things, the whole process will get seriously delayed. In this case, the author must understand that the refereeing process has a voluntary character.
The decision to accept or reject a paper depends, excluding exceptional cases, on the opinion of the referees. In those cases were they do not agree, the Editor may take the final decision, or might resolve the issue by sending the paper to a new reviewer.
Evaluation criteria
Each referee is asked to assign a value to the following aspects using a five-point scale (1, very questionable; 2, marginal; 3, adequate; 4, solid; 5, excellent):
1. Kind of contribution: First, the referee should state whether the contribution is of a theoretical or methodological nature, a state of the art, a research paper, an experience, a tutorial or a news piece. If it is a mixture of different types, it is possible to mark more than one. Finally, the overall quality of the paper should be assessed using the five-point scale.
2. Relevance to the journal's aims and scope: Though the Editor makes a preliminary assessment of this aspect, the referee may also evaluate the relevance of the paper, comparing the subject of the paper with the declaration of aims and scope of the journal that is available in each printed issue and on the web page.
3. Interest and significance of the problem addressed: Does the paper address a question of significant interest for the subject field covered by the journal? It may be as a historical perspective, considering current research or considering the foreseeable future.
4. Currency: Is the subject of the paper current? This is not an essential aspect, but should be considered.
5. Novelty and originality of the contribution: Does the article provide a new theoretical contribution to its research field? It may be a new problem, model, relation, law, hypothesis, concept, interpretation, critical perspective or improvement. It must be a relevant and well-founded contribution.
6. Novelty and originality of the methodological contribution: Does the paper provide a methodological contribution to its research field? It may be a new procedure of study, analysis, proof, design, etc., even if it is applied to a well-known problem.
7. Practical applicability: The degree to which the ideas of the paper may be useful in improving practical procedures and activities and, eventually, in advancing innovation and development.
8. Methodological rigour and validity of results: The degree of coherence, accuracy, precision and care upon which the problem is addressed; validity and currency of the methodology; rigour in sample selection and in the application of the methodology ; degree and ease to which the study may be replicated.
9. The precision, relevance and exhaustiveness of the state of the art and the acknowledgment of previous research: The degree to which an adequate and current review of the state of the art on the topic has been carried out, including the use of pertinent references.
10. Clarity, arrangement and readability: The paper must be written in a clear and well-structured manner, without redundancies or out-of-context ideas, and must be easily understood by any potential and average reader. The paper should not lack necessary information on the addressed topic, methodology, results, discussion, conclusions or recommendations. If the paper includes mathematical expressions, they should be made understandable to non-specialists.
11. Adequacy of the graphics, illustrations, tables and appendixes: Any graphics, illustrations, tables or appendixes must be necessary and relevant, be well crafted and have clear and descriptive captions.
12. Presentation of citations in the style used by the journal: Previous work should carry adequate citations in conformity with the style of the journal.
Familiarity of the referee with the topic
Though the Editor sends the papers to reviewers and tries to match them to their specialities, some misfits may occur. The referee may then decline to review the paper, perhaps suggesting an alternative reviewer, or offering to carry out the review and indicating his level of familiarity with the subject of the article, according to the scale of 1 indicating minimal familiarity and 5 the maximum. If this information is not provided, it will be supposed that his degree of familiarity is high (1) or very high (5).
This information is useful for the Editor in deciding whether the paper should be sent to a new reviewer in case of a conflict of opinions among the reviewers.
Final assessment
The referee can suggest five alternative final proposals:
1. Accept the article for publication without restrictions or changes, because it is a high-quality work.
2. Accept the article for publication once the specified amendments of a minor character have been delivered. The required corrections should be indicated in the instructions for the author. Any subsequent assessment can be delegated to the Editorial Council.
3. Reconsider after a major revision. The paper must be refereed again after the author has made the required amendments, because they are substantial and must be checked by the original reviewer or a new one.
4. Reject the paper because of the reasons explained in the "Instructions for the author" field, where the reviewer should specify clearly and tactfully the reasons why the work must be rejected and, if possible, provide suggestions for its improvement or alternative and more adequate places for its publication.
5. Decline evaluation of the paper because of a lack of familiarity with its topic or any other reason specified in the "Confidential comments for the editors" field.
The suggestion for publication may be unconditional, because it is a high-quality paper with minor problems, or conditional, if there is available space in the journal, as it is a paper of marginal quality.
Indicative deadlines
The journal is published in June and December. Articles that have not gone through the full process will be left for the next issue. The indicative deadlines for each basic process are as follows
- Revision: 15-30 days
- Second version: according to the authors' needs, but never more than one year.
- Proofreading: 2-7 days.
Acknowledgement of the contributions made by referees
The contribution of the referees is fundamental to the adequate performance of a learned journal. The journal community acknowledges in a very special way the time and the effort devoted by its referees, and recognizes their contribution by periodically publishing their names.
Open Access Policy
This journal offers open access to its articles with the aim to promote free access to scientific contents.
If you desire a paper suscription, there is a fee to cover print and mail costs.
Good practices for gender equality
Authors, reviewers and editors should use inclusive language. The use of the masculine gender should be understood as generic, and references to the female or male gender should be explicit, for example by using the words female and male.
Where disaggregated statistical data is used, it should always be broken down by sex so that any differences can be identified.
Self-archiving and institutional archiving policy
Authors are permitted and encouraged to electronically disseminate the editorial version (the version published by the publisher) on the author's personal website and in the repository of the institution with which the author is affiliated, as well as the versions submitted for peer review, accepted, and published if and where the author deems it appropriate.
Interoperability protocol
An OAI-PMH (Open Archives Initiative - Protocol for Metadata Harvesting 2.0) interface is provided to enable other portals and information services to access the metadata of content published in Dublin Core Metadata at the link https://www.ibersid.eu/ojs/index.php/ibersid/oai.
Digital preservation policies
The journal has both internal and external long-term digital preservation procedures, which are regularly re-evaluated. Regarding the internal ones, daily backups are kept, PDF format is used, DC metadata is assigned and individual DOIs are used. In terms of external preservation, the journal is preserved in the Spanish Web Archive, which is managed by the National Library of Spain. To facilitate its preservation in the event of digital disasters, it will also continue to be published in paper form and will be kept at the Biblioteca Nacional de España, the Instituto Bibliográfico Aragonés and other libraries around the world.
Printed edition
Ibersid is also published in printed version with the ISBN 1888-0967. Contact Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza for price and conditions: puz@unizar.es, http://puz.unizar.es
Ethics statement
Editors, editorial and scientific council members, peer reviewers and authors must carry out their work responsibly, honestly, loyally and independently in order to provide the academic community and the interested public with a scientific communication service specialising in original research in the journal's area of focus, within a framework of continuous improvement, quality assurance, freedom of expression, respect for individual rights, orientation towards the best technological, technical and social practices in the management of scientific journals within their means, and academic integrity.
All parties should be prepared to declare potential conflicts of interest and to make any necessary corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies, either privately in the case of private communications or publicly in the case of published articles.
The journal aims to ensure quality through a double-blind peer-review process involving at least two reviewers per article, appropriate to the content and specialty of the article, and editorial checks before, during and after the review process. Review guidelines and reviewers are published on the journal's website and updated regularly.
In addition, it is the specific responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and the Senior Editor to safeguard the rights of parties, including readers and third parties, where they are in conflict. In particular, he/she must try to prevent authors from providing misinformation to readers, or from demanding inadequate work from reviewers because of obvious gaps in their consideration of the state of the art, in their discourse, or in their methodological and narrative procedures; and he/she must prevent reviewers from treating authors unfairly or discourteously.
If necessary, in the event of irreconcilable differences on matters of scientific debate, the Editor of the Journal will seek the opinion of the Editorial Board and, where appropriate, the Scientific Board. In all these processes, all parties, especially those who have been challenged or alarmed, will be consulted in order to arrive at the most informed judgement possible.
Anti-plagiarism and IA-related policies
According to the journal Code of Ethics, plagiarism is not accepted in any case and the editorial team and reviewers routinely scan papers to try to detect it.
The use of AI is allowed like any other research tool, whose use can be declared like other methodological and technical procedures, but as the responsible or author of research processes. Humans should always assume the responsibility and authorship of articles. The proper implementation of this policy will be verified through the use of appropriate technologies.
Authorship and funding-acknowledgment policy
The journal uses the persistent digital author identifier ORCID, the use of which is mandatory for authors when submitting their article proposal.
In the case of multiple authorship, the system allows the order of signatures to be assigned in the submission, which cannot be changed except in exceptional cases after a formal retraction process, which must be documented as a note in the modified article itself. In order to meet the requirements of the reviewing agencies, authors must indicate their role(s) according to the CRediT taxonomy both in the submission letter and in the printed version of their article sin 2025.
Authors should acknowledge the institutions and individuals that have made the research from which their article is derived possible, and include this information in the metadata of their article.
Fees
Authors are not requeired to pay fees for publication. Authors accept to submit an error-free version according to the editorial instructions.
