For Reviewers

Texas Conference on Digital Libraries 2026 Short Paper Peer Review Guidelines

The TCDL 2026 peer review guidelines are designed to provide guidance for peer reviewers participating in the review process. The sections below outline the aim and scope of the journal, the type of peer review model used, ethical considerations, and expectations for the peer review report that will be sent to authors.

Aim and scope

Texas Conference on Digital Libraries Papers proceedings publish written papers from approved presentations, panels, and posters presented at the Texas Conference on Digital Libraries (TCDL) 2026. The purpose of this journal is to offer TDL members an opportunity to share and publish their research in a formal, highly valued format. Topics in the journal reflect the broad interests of the TDL community and may include, but are not limited to, open education, digital collections, digital humanities and scholarship, metadata, digital preservation, and scholarly communication. Please see the call for proposal topic ideas for additional options.

Type of Peer Review Model

This journal will adopt a Double-Anonymous Peer Review (1) model. In this approach, both the reviewers’ and authors' identities remain concealed from one another to reduce the risk of unconscious bias. The identities of both parties will be known only to the editorial team. Anonymity helps reviewers provide constructive feedback without concern for retaliation, while authors can be assured of an impartial review of their work.

(1) Adopting this model described by multiple publishing companies (i.e. Taylor & Francis, Wiley, and Oxford University Press). We would like to note that this model doesn’t guarantee full anonymity as an author or review can glean the identity of one another if they hold any familiarity with each other's writing style and research topic.

Ethical Guidelines

Before beginning the peer review process, please take into consideration the ethical guidelines below (2):

Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest. If a reviewer becomes aware of an author submitting a paper, they must disclose this to the editorial team. Although the journal utilizes the double-anonymous peer review model, the editorial team aims to prevent reviewers potentially recognizing an author’s paper with whom they have a prior relationship and unintentionally providing a biased review.
Before accepting an invitation to be a peer reviewer, reviewers should disclose to the editorial team if they are incapable at any point of the process to complete the review and provide substantive feedback.
Reviewers must keep the review process confidential and not share any information with anyone outside the review process.
Reviewers are not permitted to use artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT or Copilot to assist in the review process or develop peer review reports. Nor are reviewers permitted to upload papers to artificial intelligence tools or unauthorized databases.
Reviewers must create the peer review report themselves and not use assistance from others outside the peer review process.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, appropriate feedback. Feedback should not be rushed, unfair, or use unsavory language. Comments should be properly edited to convey messages in positive or neutral tones, express ideas of varying degrees of certainty, and present the logical order of words, sentences, and paragraphs.

(2) The ethical guidelines are influenced and adapted some of the language outlined in Taylor & Francis author services peer review guidelines., at any point in the process, they are unable

Peer Review Process

Peer reviewers are expected to address questions in OJS that cover the key components of the paper outlined below. To facilitate the reviewers' work, a list of guiding questions is provided for each critical structural component. These questions assist reviewers in developing their feedback. In OJS, the “Structure of Review” section will include input boxes where reviewers can submit their feedback. The editorial team is responsible for reviewing the papers' citation formatting. Comments on grammar will be considered minor feedback.

Peer Review Template:

Abstract

Does the abstract provide a short summary of the aims, research question, or case study, key arguments, and methods?

Introduction

Does the introduction outline the topic or make the research question clear? What are the key arguments?
Does it establish the need for the research, justify why the paper is important, and explain what gaps in knowledge or conflicts in understanding it addresses?

Methods/ Research

Are the methods appropriate for the research question or case study?
Are the methods clearly described?
Are the methods repeatable? The paper should provide enough detail so that other researchers can replicate the research (e.g., equipment used, sampling methods, systems/platforms).
If the paper is using analytical research, is it robust? Do the authors provide sufficient data to support their results? Is the surrounding relevant and recent literature adequately presented?

Results

Do the authors summarize their overall conclusions?
Do the results match the methods and data?
Are the data described in the text consistent with the data in the figures, tables, or other display items?
Did they explain the significance of these results for broader understanding?

Discussion/ Conclusion

Does the conclusion address the research question? Is it consistent with the evidence and arguments presented in the paper?
Does the author describe the limitations of their research or evidence?
Are the claims and rationale convincing? If not, what additional evidence is needed?

Figures & Tables

Are tables/figures numbered and titled?
Are the table scale dimensions described?

References

Are the claims convincing, even if not significant? If not, what further evidence is needed?
Does the author cite appropriate sources from the scholarly literature? Do the sources cited support their claims and argument?
Are there specific sources or areas of the scholarly literature that are missing and should be referenced?
Are all resources mentioned in the paper included in the references? Are all citations appropriately formatted?

Structure of Review

When you enter your review in the TCDL Papers portal, you will be prompted to input your review in the following sections:

Summary - Demonstrates that the paper was read and understood.
Strengths of paper - Celebrate what was done well (clarity, topic approach, figures, etc.)
Weaknesses of paper - Provide specific and constructive criticism in bulleted points.
Specific suggestions - Ideas on how to fix weaknesses or improve the paper.
Conclusion & Recommendation - Next steps

Post Review Steps

Accept Submission

The paper can be accepted in its current form, with only minor revisions that can be

Revisions Required

The paper requires minor content or editorial changes before final submission.

Resubmit for Review

The paper contains major issues outlined in the “structure of review”, which may require improvement in clarity, research approach, discussion, etc.

Resubmit Elsewhere

Please ignore

Decline Submission

Please ignore

Decline Submission and see comments

The paper is flawed to the extent that it is unlikely that revisions can render it suitable for submission.

Resources

ASHA Journals Academy. (2023). Peer Review Procedures. https://academy.pubs.asha.org/prep-the-asha-journals-peer-review-excellence-program/peer-review-procedures/

Nature Publishing Group. (2026). Referee instructions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. https://www.nature.com/palcomms/for-referees#The%20review%20process

Taylor & Francis Author Services. (2026). What are the different types of peer review? https://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/publishing-your-research/peer-review/types-peer-review/#double_anonymous

Zimba, O., & Gasparyan, A. Y. (2021). Peer review guidance: a primer for researchers. Reumatologia, 59(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.5114/reum.2021.102709