Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
In the Library with the Lead Pipe is an open-access journal for library science and information science, started in 2008 and run by an independent collective of librarians. It uses an open peer review model in which drafts are reviewed collaboratively in shared Google Docs.
Short answer
Yes, articles published through the journal’s publication process are peer reviewed under an open model that involves an internal Editorial Board reviewer and an external reviewer, but material that does not go through that process, such as announcements, should not be cited as peer-reviewed scholarship.
How In the Library with the Lead Pipe’s peer review works
The journal’s own publication process page describes an open peer review workflow. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) records the journal’s review process as “Open peer review” and lists a publication time of 12 weeks. Rather than concealing identities, the model has authors, a Publishing Editor and reviewers work together on the draft.
The process runs over a 12-week timeline from proposal acceptance to publication:
- Proposal acceptance (week -12): The Editorial Board accepts the proposal and assigns a Publishing Editor and an internal reviewer from the board. An external reviewer, a subject expert from the professional community, is also part of the process.
- First draft (week -10): The author submits a draft in a shared Google Doc.
- Reviewer feedback (week -8): The reviewers comment on content soundness, argumentation and voice, along with copy edits and grammar.
- Revised draft (week -6): The author revises in response to the comments. Charts and other data visualizations need full text-based equivalents so that screen-reader users can access them.
- Final feedback (week -4): Reviewers and the Publishing Editor respond to the revised draft.
- Finalization (week -2): The Publishing Editor checks the piece against the Lead Pipe Style Guide before publication.
What is peer reviewed and what is not
The peer review process applies to articles that go through the publication process described above. Announcements, calls for papers and other operational posts on the journal’s website are not articles that went through that process, so cite them as editorial or organizational material and not as peer-reviewed research. If a specific piece is not clearly marked as having gone through review, check with the journal before treating it as peer reviewed.
Indexing and recognised lists
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ): Listed under E-ISSN 1944-6195, with review process “Open peer review”, no article processing charges recorded, a CC BY 4.0 licence, and the DOAJ Seal flag set (last full review 2023-09-21). DOAJ classifies it under LCC class Z (Bibliography. Library science. Information resources).
For Scopus, Web of Science and other databases, check each list’s own search page for the current status of the journal. If you need to understand how journal metrics work, see how to look up a journal’s impact factor.
How to check a specific article yourself
- Open the article on the journal’s website and look at the byline and front matter for named editor and reviewer roles.
- Read the publication process page and confirm the article type is one that goes through it.
- Search DOAJ with E-ISSN
1944-6195to confirm the journal’s open peer review designation is current. - Look at post-publication discussion for the article, which is a separate activity from post-publication peer review.
For how formal corrections and withdrawals work in scholarly publishing generally, see how a retraction actually happens.
Frequently asked questions
Is In the Library with the Lead Pipe peer reviewed?
Yes. DOAJ records its review process as open peer review, and the journal’s publication process describes review by an internal Editorial Board member and an external reviewer in Google Docs.
Does In the Library with the Lead Pipe charge author fees?
DOAJ records no article processing charges and no other charges for the journal, and lists a CC BY 4.0 licence with authors retaining copyright.
How does open peer review differ from double-blind review?
In double-blind review, author and reviewer identities are hidden from each other. In this journal’s open model, the author, Publishing Editor and reviewers work together on a shared draft.
Sources
Checked 2026-11-07.
- In the Library with the Lead Pipe, “Lead Pipe Publication Process”: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/submission-guidelines/lead-pipe-publication-process/
- In the Library with the Lead Pipe, “About”: https://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/about/
- Directory of Open Access Journals, journal record for E-ISSN 1944-6195: https://doaj.org/api/v2/search/journals/issn:1944-6195
