© Copyright 2026 Mastersinlibraryscience.org.
A case study of a librarian-run journal's shared-doc review process for MLIS students
Blind review is no longer the only way LIS journals vet scholarship. In the Library with the Lead Pipe, an open-access journal started in 2008 and run by an independent collective of librarians, reviews drafts collaboratively in shared Google Docs where authors see every comment.
Per a CASRAI guide to the journal, an internal Editorial Board reviewer and an external subject expert work on a 12-week path from proposal to publication, and the Directory of Open Access Journals records its process as "Open peer review."
For MLIS students and early-career authors, that shifts the calculus: choosing where to submit now means weighing a journal's review model alongside its scope.
Open peer review is a family of practices rather than a single method, and library and information science has become one of its most visible testing grounds. At its core, the term describes review that happens visibly: reviewers and authors correspond in the open rather than trading anonymous, one-way reports.
In the Library with the Lead Pipe practices the third version. Drafts circulate in shared Google Docs, read by an internal Editorial Board reviewer and an external subject expert drawn from the professional community, and the conversation happens in the margins of the working text.
The two terms get conflated constantly. Open access describes how a finished article is distributed: free to read, with defined reuse rights. Open peer review describes how that article was evaluated before it appeared. A journal can be fully open access and still run closed, anonymous review, so readers weighing source credibility need to check both facts separately.
Librarianship's professional commitments, transparency, shared governance and service to a community of users, sit more comfortably with visible review than with sealed deliberation. The discipline also publishes its own methods. Reviewers who read arguments in the open are doing, in miniature, what the field asks of anyone evaluating a source.
Open collaborative review and double-blind review differ most in who can see whom, but the ethics rules around them overlap heavily. Guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) applies the same conflict-of-interest standards to both models. The table below separates what changes with the model from what stays the same.
| Feature | Open / collaborative review | Double-blind review |
|---|---|---|
| Identity visibility | Authors, reviewers and editors know who is involved and work in the same draft, as at In the Library with the Lead Pipe, where drafts are reviewed in shared Google Docs | Author and reviewer identities are concealed from each other |
| Where feedback happens | Comments are placed directly in a shared document, so the author can respond as the draft develops | Feedback is typically passed through the editor, so the author and reviewer do not exchange it directly |
| Conflict disclosure | Conflicts should be declared and handled through a clear process before publication, ideally as a separate step in submission or review | Blinding does not remove the reviewer's obligation to declare potential competing interests |
| Reviewer eligibility | A reviewer should decline if currently employed at the same institution as an author, or if a recent relationship exists, such as mentorship, close collaboration or joint grant holding within the past three years | The same rule applies: decline for a shared institution or a relationship within the past three years |
| Editor recusal | An editor with a conflict, including prior co-authorship, declares it and stays out of reviewer assignment and decisions. A note about peer-review independence should ideally be added to the paper | An editor with a conflict declares it and stays out of reviewer assignment and decisions |
| Types of conflict covered | Personal, financial, professional, intellectual, political or religious, including relationships with an author or editor | The same range of conflicts applies |
| When reviewers disagree | Editors rely on training in review procedures, reviewer selection, unacceptable reviewer comments and communicating revision requests | The same editor training supports handling of conflicting reviews |
| Transparency standard | Review procedures should be transparent, and decisions must rest strictly on scholarly merit, free from conflicts of interest | The same transparency and merit standard applies |
Open review trades the protection of anonymity for the accountability of visible feedback, and for a field built on transparency, that trade is often worth making.
Open review promises richer feedback, but it asks authors to take part in the process rather than simply wait for a verdict. In the Library with the Lead Pipe, an open-access journal started in 2008, shows how that tradeoff plays out. It is run by an independent collective of librarians working in various types of libraries, not by a publisher or a professional association.
Each article is reviewed by at least one internal reviewer and at least one external reviewer, working alongside the author and a Publishing Editor. The roles break down like this:
Drafts are submitted and reviewed in Google Docs, so the author, Publishing Editor and both reviewers see the same file and each other's comments. Reviewers address content soundness, argumentation and voice, and they also mark copy edits and grammar. Nothing is anonymous. The CASRAI guide to the journal and the Directory of Open Access Journals both describe the review model as open peer review.
The process runs on a schedule of roughly 12 weeks. Acceptance and reviewer assignment come first, the first draft follows about two weeks later, and initial reviewer feedback is due eight weeks before publication. A revised draft and a second round of feedback follow, and the article is finalized two weeks before publication. If the reviewers are not satisfied that the revision is publishable, they can request further changes before it goes live.
The biggest shift is in how proposals arrive. In 2022 the journal moved from rolling submissions to a structured cycle, with submission windows in January and August. The 2026 August window ran from August 1 to August 31. The current process also does not allow generative AI in peer review. Anyone citing the journal's workflow should start with the Lead Pipe publication process page, which carries the current rules, and treat third-party summaries such as the CASRAI guide and library directory listings as secondary descriptions.
How long does peer review take at Lead Pipe? The journal's 12 weeks run from proposal acceptance to publication, so the window covers drafting, two review rounds and finalization, not review time alone. Each deadline is a minimum, and authors and reviewers are encouraged to work ahead.
A text equivalent is a written version of a chart or graph that delivers the same information in words or numbers, so a reader who relies on a screen reader gets the findings without seeing the image. At In the Library with the Lead Pipe, reviewers require that charts and data visualizations come with full text-based equivalents. That expectation applies during review, not only at final production.
Equitable access is a core library value. Putting it on the review checklist treats accessibility as part of scholarly quality, judged alongside argument and evidence, instead of a fix applied after acceptance. Authors learn early that a figure nobody can read with assistive technology is incomplete, and reviewers model the inclusive practice librarians promote in their own collections and services.
The requirement lines up with WCAG success criterion 1.1.1, Non-text Content. This Level A criterion says non-text content needs a text alternative that serves the same purpose. W3C's guidance on complex images, including technique G95, calls for two layers: a short alternative that identifies or summarizes the image, and a long alternative that conveys relationships, trends and other essential details.1 A generic label such as "bar chart" or "Figure 2" falls short when the chart carries real data or conclusions.
A one-line alt caption works for identification, but it cannot carry a complex chart on its own.
Lead Pipe's open, shared-document review is easiest to judge next to how other well-known LIS journals describe their own processes, from double-anonymous review at College & Research Libraries to single-blind review at JASIST and committee-based open review at Code4Lib Journal. Each review model below comes from the journal's own policy or process page, and missing figures are marked "Not published" rather than estimated. Acceptance and turnaround data in LIS are sparse and inconsistent: some journals report a rate, others a timeline, and the figures measure different stages, so compare them with care. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice is left out because its review model could not be confirmed from a published source.
| Journal | Review model | Published acceptance rate or review time | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| College & Research Libraries | Double-anonymous (double-blind); manuscripts that meet the guidelines go to two peer reviewers | Turnaround of 10 to 12 weeks; acceptance rate: Not published | Editorial Policies, College & Research Libraries (Association of College and Research Libraries) |
| Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology (JASIST) | Single-blind, multi-step review with at least two, and typically three or more, expert referees | Acceptance rate of about 6 percent; review time: Not published | Issue Information (Wiley) |
| Code4Lib Journal | Generally open peer review, with the editorial committee voting on provisional and final acceptance | Provisional vote generally within a month of submission; acceptance rate: Not published | Process and Structure (Code4Lib Journal) |
| In the Library with the Lead Pipe | Open peer review in shared Google Docs, with an internal Editorial Board reviewer and an external subject-expert reviewer | 12-week timeline from proposal acceptance to publication; acceptance rate: Not published | Directory of Open Access Journals record and the journal's published review process |
A journal's review model is only useful to authors if the details are published: who reviews, how long it takes, and what happens to a draft along the way.
Open peer review means some part of the review, such as the reports, the reviewers' names, or the exchange between reviewer and author, is visible rather than sealed. For LIS journals and their authors, the research on whether open review helps is more modest than the enthusiasm around it.
A 2024 scoping review of 52 studies found generally positive attitudes toward published reports and more skepticism toward revealed identities.1 It found no evidence that either practice reduces reviewers' acceptance of invitations or slows turnaround. Evidence on review quality is weak and mixed.1 One study saw a more constructive, less harsh tone, while the review as a whole found no solid proof that publishing reports changes how critical reviewers are.
An Elsevier pilot across five journals (2010 to 2017) found that publishing reports did not significantly reduce willingness to review or lengthen turnaround.2 But only 8.1% of referees chose to reveal their names, so the pilot says little about mandatory disclosure.2 A 2019 randomized trial also found almost no difference in rated quality (0.04 points from editors, 0.06 from authors on a 1 to 5 scale).3 However, 55% of the 1,039 reviewers approached declined, and reviews took about 25 minutes longer.3 Bias evidence is uneven, and data on authors' satisfaction or sense of fairness is thin.
The upside is a more conversational process, where feedback is visible and revisions can be discussed rather than guessed at. The risk is exposure. Reviewers who know their words may be read could soften real criticism, and authors may feel their early drafts are on display.
Published acceptance-rate and turnaround figures for LIS journals are limited, so ask rather than assume. Email the editor and ask:
A direct answer before you commit tells you more than any listed statistic.
Taking a journal's word for its review process is one thing. Checking an independent record is another. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) offers the second, as long as you read its records with care.
Search DOAJ by journal title or ISSN and open the record. Two entries matter most here: the peer review type and the publication time.4 For In the Library with the Lead Pipe (e-ISSN 1944-6195), DOAJ lists the review process as "Open peer review" and gives a publication time of 12 weeks from submission to publication.1 The record also shows U.S. publication, no author fees and the DOAJ Seal.1
Treat both entries as starting points. The 12-week figure is an expected full-route estimate. It does not promise that every manuscript follows that schedule. The label "Open peer review" also leaves questions open: it does not say whether reviewer names, author names, review reports or all three are visible.
DOAJ records rely on information that journals supply. Its transparency guidance asks journals to state two things: whether content is reviewed by people outside the editorial team, and how long the process takes.2
Confirm the details on the journal's own site. Lead Pipe's description fills in what the record leaves out. It uses a collaborative model with an internal Editorial Board reviewer and an external subject expert.3 The process runs 12 weeks from proposal acceptance to publication. That interval starts at a different point than DOAJ's "submission," so the two figures are not directly interchangeable.
How can you tell if a library science journal is peer reviewed? Check the journal's review statement first. Then confirm that the specific piece went through that review. Many LIS journals publish announcements, editorials, news and professional commentary alongside reviewed articles.
A journal's own description of its review process is a claim, and a DOAJ record is where you check it. Confirm the stated model before you cite it, teach it, or submit to it.
Open review is moving from experiment to ordinary practice in LIS publishing, which means students no longer have to wait until graduation to take part. In the Library with the Lead Pipe, an independent collective of librarians publishing since 2008, reviews drafts collaboratively in shared Google Docs, so the mechanics are visible in a way blind review keeps hidden.
How can MLIS students get involved in peer review? Start by pitching a proposal, then volunteer to review or ask to observe a shared-document review, and bring the model into coursework and source-evaluation practice. Students can take any of these routes.
Lead Pipe's 12-week timeline begins at proposal acceptance, not with a finished manuscript. A student with a sharp question from a practicum, a course project or a job can submit a proposal and develop the piece with a Publishing Editor and reviewers. That is a gentler entry point than polishing a full paper alone.
Offer to serve as a reviewer if you have relevant expertise, or ask an editor whether you may watch a shared-document review. Seeing how comments on soundness, argumentation, voice and copy edits accumulate teaches more than any description of the process.
Instructors can assign students to annotate a draft in a shared document, then compare their comments with a blind-review report on a similar article. Discussion questions write themselves: What did visible comments reveal that anonymous ones hid? Who was accountable for each suggestion?
Have students check the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which records Lead Pipe's review process as "Open peer review," and then read the journal's own policy pages. The exercise helps them separate peer-reviewed articles from commentary, announcements and opinion pieces.
Students can also practice inclusive design along the way. Lead Pipe reviewers require text-based equivalents for charts and data visualizations so screen-reader users can access them, a habit worth adopting in any paper.
