Research Integrity

LIBER Quarterly is committed to upholding the highest standards of quality and integrity in the publication of its articles.

The editors will take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. In no case shall this journal or its editors encourage such misconduct, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

LIBER Quarterly adheres to the best practices in the ethics of scholarly publishing stated in the COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Guidelines for all parties involved: Authors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.

The Editorial Board of LIBER Quarterly undertakes to publish all corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies as soon as possible if and when they are required.

Authors are required to ensure that the submission has not been previously published, that permission has been obtained for the use of copyrighted material and that they do not infringe on the rights of third parties.

Conflict of Interest

To ensure a reliable and open publication process, all authors, reviewers and editors are required to declare any interests that could appear to compromise, conflict or influence the validity of the publication.

Correction Policy 

Despite hard working Editors and Authors, published items may sometimes need amendments.

This LIBER Quarterly corrections policy is applicable to all our publishing activity. For a variety of reasons, some articles need to be corrected after publication. Such reasons can range from minor typos and small errors through to more serious issues concerning ethics and copyright. In accordance with guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (where applicable), LIBER Quarterly handles different kinds of error in the following ways.

1. Amendment: All articles will have had their proofs checked prior to publication by the author/editor, which should ensure that content errors are not present. Please contact the LIBER Quarterly Managing Editor if an article needs correcting. Amendment for minor content or metadata issues will be amended by our copy editors (both PDF and HTML) if the error is reported within three working days of publication.
2. Publisher’s Note: A publisher’s note will be issued for minor matters that do not directly affect the conclusions of the article. The note will be posted to the article. It will appear after the article abstract/metadata to highlight error and display the correct text where necessary (the error will not be corrected in the article itself.)  The wording of the note will be drafted by the LIBER Quarterly Managing Editor and approved by both the editor(s) and author(s).
3. Correction Article: Where an error would affect the conclusions of an article (but not the validity of the findings), or contains incorrect information about the article metadata (author list, title, editor, etc.), a correction article will be posted. Correction articles are used to formally correct the scientific record and to ensure errors in metadata are properly highlighted. Unlike a publisher’s note, correction articles will appear as an article in the journal’s table of contents and will be delivered to indexes in the usual fashion. The original article will contain a banner that links to the correction to alert readers. The wording of the note will be drafted by the LIBER Quarterly Managing Editor and approved by both the editor(s) and 2 author(s).
4. Retraction: Retractions are used to remove a published paper from the scientific record. In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics’ guidance (adapted from https://publicationethics.org/news/copes-retraction-guidelines-2019), retractions are used when:

• Managing Editor becomes aware of clear evidence that the article’s findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error).
• Findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication).
• Article publication is found to constitute plagiarism.
• Article is found to have reported unethical research.

Retractions will be drafted and posted in the same way as correction articles and with the editorial board’s approval. The original article will remain but readers will be alerted to the retraction via a banner at the top of the article.

5. Withdrawal: In rare circumstances, articles will need to be withdrawn and removed from the journal site. This is usually for legal reasons, such as copyright infringement or ethical concerns. The abstract and metadata of the original article will remain, but a banner that links to the retraction note will appear in place of the rest of the contents.
6. Decisions about errors and corrections: LIBER Quarterly reserves the right to decide what constitutes a minor issue and whether a note or correction article is necessary. Where necessary, the LIBER Quarterly Managing Editor will consult the LIBER Quarterly Editorial Board to decide whether an error should be corrected by a note or a correction article. The Managing Editor will always consult the Editorial Board (via the Chair) about retractions and withdrawals. Retractions may be requested by an article’s author(s), by an institution, by readers, or by the editor. Since responsibility for the journal’s content rests with the Managing Editor, they will have the final decision about retracting material. The Managing Editor may retract publications even if all or some of the authors do not agree.
7. Costs of Corrections: Quality checking procedures are applied throughout the publication process in order to avoid errors occurring in the first place. However, where a correction requires a new article to be typeset and published, there may be additional typesetting costs accrued. If the error is deemed to be the fault of the author(s), they may be required to meet that cost. LIBER Quarterly will meet costs resulting from errors deemed to be LIBER Quarterly’s mistake.

Peer Review Process

LIBER Quarterly follows a thorough, double-blind, peer review procedure, by external reviewers. The anonymity of authors and reviewers will be monitored with the utmost care. Publications of a commentary or opinion nature may not be sent for external peer review but will include extensive editorial review and revisions.

LIBER Quarterly applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the author's name is removed from the manuscript. Each contribution is judged by two independent referees. The criteria of acceptance include the following aspects:
- Relevance of the paper for the scope of the journal and for its readership.
- Originality, offering of new insights.
- Soundness of arguments, based on research or on systematic approach.
- Appropriate references.
- Clear conclusions or results.
- Structure and language.

Normal timing for this process should be 4 to 6 weeks. In case of conflicting recommendations, a third referee may be asked to give an additional advice.
The decision of the editors may be to accept the paper as is or with minor revisions, to ask for a resubmission after additional work, or to reject for publication. In each case users receive detailed feedback about this decision.

Research Data and Software Policy

We encourage our authors to deposit research data, methodologies and any software associated with published articles in open archives whenever possible.

Open data means that peer reviewers can better assess the foundations of claims made, and that readers are able to similarly validate authors’ work after publication. Open data also allows others to more easily find and build upon research output.

LIBER Quarterly can (in agreement with authors) deposit large datasets related to published papers in the LIBER Quarterly dataverse. Smaller datasets can be uploaded on the journal website as supplementary files to a paper. Authors may have their own preferred open data repository which will be linked to in the published article. Depositing data in open repositories will greatly increase the re-usability and impact the authors’ work, leading to increased citations and opportunities for collaboration.

AI Policy for Authors

LIBER Quarterly encourages authors to express their original ideas and research outputs in their submissions. However, we acknowledge that some authors might like to use tools that support writing and research, including Generative AI tools, to support their writing. This policy aims to explain acceptable and non-acceptable uses of generative AI. This policy will be reviewed periodically to take into account changing technological developments and community standards.

1. LIBER Quarterly does not accept AI generated manuscripts.
2. LIBER Quarterly does not accept manuscripts that list generative AI tools as authors or co-authors. The responsibilities involved in authorship ─ such as integrity, accuracy and originality ─ can only be attributed to humans.
3. LIBER Quarterly does not accept manuscripts that cite generative AI tools as information sources, because these do not constitute an adequate source of information or knowledge. Authors are expected to use primary sources (e.g., research publications, reports, data, archival material, etc.) and to reflect critically on how these are used.
4. LIBER Quarterly does not accept manuscripts in which the literature review is outsourced to machines. AI tools can be used as a supplement in searching for relevant references. Authors are expected to be well acquainted with the sources they cite and the reasons for citing them.
5. LIBER Quarterly accepts the use of AI, whether generative or not, for linguistic purposes, but expects authors to disclose it. Examples of this type of use is proofreading, translation of individual pieces of text (e. g. a quote), stylistic modification, and feedback on text structure.
6. LIBER Quarterly accepts the use of AI for assistance in image processing, provided that the image is relevant in the context of the manuscript, and that authors ensure that the outcomes abide by scholarly ethical principles. 
7. LIBER Quarterly accepts the use of AI for accessibility and the compliance with accessibility standards, such as ensuring headings are marked as such, and adding ALT text tags to images.
8. LIBER Quarterly accepts the use of AI for assistance with coding/writing scripts, provided that authors take responsibility for code review and testing, and that they disclose it.
9. When using generative AI, LIBER Quarterly advises authors to consider how the tools they use address concerns relating to confidentiality and copyright, information security, personal or sensitive data. They should also consider how developers align with the values of the library community, including openness, independence and the promotion of the public good.

Authors remain fully accountable for the accuracy, integrity and originality of their work, and assert that their submissions are free from any type of misconduct, including plagiarism and data fabrication (see more on Liber Quarterly’s declaration on research integrity).

Authors who use generative AI to prepare their manuscripts and/or illustrations must describe which tools they used and how. This can be done either through a discussion in methods, in footnotes (e.g., for translated passages), or in a separate section at the end of the manuscript. LIBER Quarterly leaves the decision about how to account for AI at the discretion of authors. Authors should consult the managing editor in case of doubt or if additional guidance is needed.

AI Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers are not allowed to upload any manuscripts (or excerpts) to generative AI tools of any kind as this violates the expectation underlying the peer-review process, and in particular the trust between authors, editors and reviewers. This practice may also violate the authors’ intellectual property and privacy rights.

Reviewers are allowed to use generative AI for linguistic purposes such as proofreading (see LIBER Quarterly’s AI policy for authors), provided that they are able to safeguard matters of information security and maintain the confidentiality of the manuscripts they evaluate.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts for originality and scholarly merit. If a manuscript appears overly dependent on generative AI (e.g. lacks critical insight, exhibits generic or incoherent analysis), reviewers can and should reject it, without having to confirm their suspicions of AI use.