Review Process

Peer Review Process for Authors

The Journal of the Music Research Association utilizes a double-blind peer review system. This system ensures that the identities of both reviewers and authors are kept confidential from one another. Each manuscript is meticulously evaluated by at least two independent reviewers and the journal editors.

The peer review process includes the following steps:

  1. Initial Evaluation: The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief to determine its suitability for evaluation. A Section Editor is assigned to manuscripts deemed suitable. The Editor-in-Chief’s initial review covers criteria such as compliance with the journal's focus and scope, publication quality, language proficiency, adherence to ethical standards, and conflict of interest.

  2. Preliminary Screening: Manuscripts found insufficient in terms of scientific value, originality, or suitability for the target audience may not be included in the peer review process.

  3. Peer Review: Manuscripts deemed suitable for evaluation by the Editor-in-Chief and/or Section Editor are sent to at least two independent reviewers for double-blind peer review.

  4. Editorial Review: The Section Editor carefully examines the reviews completed by the referees and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

  5. Final Decision: The final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals and Complaints

The journal follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines regarding appeals and complaints related to the peer review process. Appeals against editorial decisions are accepted. However, authors must provide strong evidence, additional information, and data in their appeal letters.

Authors may send their appeal letters to editor@jomra.org. It is recommended that appeal letters include the following information (if applicable):

  • Grounds for appeal,

  • Details regarding technical errors,

  • Reasons for conflict and disagreement,

  • Evidence regarding conflict of interest,

  • Additional or new references, evidence, information, and data.

Editors will respond to the request within two months. Editors may reject the article, accept it, request revisions, or propose initiating an additional evaluation process. All decisions regarding appeals are final.

Article Withdrawal

Manuscripts that have been submitted to the peer review process cannot be withdrawn. However, in cases of excessive delays in the peer review process, authors have the right to withdraw their manuscripts. The corresponding author may request withdrawal by sending an email to editor@jomra.org.

Peer Review Process for Editors and Reviewers

Technical Check (By the Editorial Office)

  • Similarity check

  • Review of format requirements

  • Completeness of all necessary information

  • Check of files, forms, documents, and declarations

Initial Review by the Editor-in-Chief The manuscript is evaluated for compliance with the following criteria:

  • Suitability for the journal's aim, focus, and scope

  • Publication quality

  • Language quality

  • Ethical standards

  • Conflict of interest

  • The Editor-in-Chief either rejects the manuscript or forwards it to Section Editors.

Review by Section Editors

  • Objective errors

  • Language errors (grammar, spelling rules, and relevant scientific literature)

  • Research quality

  • Compliance of the research with ethical standards

  • Section Editors may reject the manuscript or send it for peer review.

Peer Review Process

  • Conflict of Interest Declaration: If a conflict of interest exists, the editorial office evaluates the situation, and if deemed appropriate, reviewers are assigned. The Editorial Board follows COPE’s conflict of interest guidelines.

  • Detailed Examination of the Manuscript:

  • Quality Assessment: Research question, hypothesis, theoretical framework, compliance with scientific literature, method, scientific standards, language and presentation, strengths and weaknesses.

  • Providing Feedback: Suggestions to improve the study or the presentation of results.

  • Determining one of four options:

    • Accept

    • Minor Revision

    • Major Revision

    • Reject

  • Preparing the Reviewer Report:

    • Adding literature citations to support comments (where appropriate)

    • Adding comments on the PDF full text

    • Providing confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief that are not shared with the authors

Questions for Reviewers to Consider During the Evaluation Process

Title

  • Does it accurately reflect the study?

  • Is the length appropriate?

  • Does it contain abbreviations that would make it difficult to understand?

Abstract

  • Does it reasonably summarize the content of the study?

  • If it is a quantitative study, does it contain data?

Introduction

  • Is sufficient background information provided?

  • Does it explain why the study was conducted?

  • Is the rationale for the study clearly stated?

  • Is the hypothesis clearly expressed?

Method

  • Are data collection methods sufficiently explained and appropriate?

  • Is the method reproducible?

  • Is there a sufficient number of participants for inference regarding research results, and is this number calculated correctly?

  • Are appropriate controls used?

  • Are statistical analyses appropriate and sufficient?

  • If human participants were used, was informed consent obtained?

Results

  • Are the data presented sufficiently?

  • Are other data presented that were not mentioned in the method section?

  • Do the numbers given in the tables and the text match?

  • Is there unnecessary repetition between the text and tables/figures?

  • Are tables and figures sufficient and necessary?

  • Are tables/figures captioned correctly?

Discussion

  • Is the introductory paragraph appropriate?

  • Are the results discussed sufficiently in light of the relevant literature?

  • Is there unnecessary speculation?

  • Are the limitations of the study stated?

  • Is there a conclusion paragraph?

General Evaluation

  • Is the subject within the scope of the journal?

  • Is the topic current and important?

  • Is the language of the article at an acceptable level?

  • Are the references up-to-date?

Evaluation of the Revised Manuscript

  • Did the authors respond to the suggestions?

  • Are the revisions made acceptable?

  • Did the authors explain why they did not implement a suggestion?

Final Decision for Publication After the authors complete the revisions and/or submit the final version of the manuscript, the Section Editors forward their recommendations for publication to the Editor-in-Chief. There may be multiple rounds of peer review before a final decision is made.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the Section Editors' recommendations, makes the final decision, and notifies the authors. The manuscript is either accepted or rejected. If the manuscript is accepted, the production team begins preparing it for publication.