Peer Review Policy
The peer review process for the Journal of Music and Creative Arts (JMCA) is designed to ensure all publications’ academic integrity and scholarly quality. We adhere to a rigorous double-blind peer review structure where authors and reviewers remain anonymous, ensuring impartiality and fairness (the author and the reviewer are not disclosed during the review process). Strict criteria for quality, originality, and significance apply to all articles in our journals in order to maintain a world-class reputation. Only members of the editorial board who have been vetted are involved in peer-reviewing manuscripts.
Review Process
All submissions made to the editor (whether through the OJS system of email) are automatically forwarded to journal-specific chief editors. The manuscript is first subjected to a plagiarism check. If the paper is found to be plagiarized, it is rejected, and immediate communication is made to the author to revise, resubmit, or make other decisions. If plagiarism-free, the editor deletes the authors’ details, codes it, and sends the coded manuscript to two reviewers.
Once the reviewers are through, they send the manuscript back to the editor with comments and the author is given a chance to make corrections per the reviewers’ directions. After revision, the authors return the revised manuscript to the editor, who forwards it to the first reviewers, and the process begins again.
The process is repeated until the reviewers and the editor are convinced that the manuscript meets all the standards for publication. Note that papers can be rejected at any stage should the author fail to make corrections as guided. The chief editor ensures that all comments and suggestions given are fair and without bias.
The speed of the process depends on the reviewers’ speed and the author’s ability to respond quickly. From our end, we endeavour to make the review process as quick as possible, where a reviewer should not take more than five days. Before assigning manuscripts to reviewers, communication is done to ensure the reviewer is in a position to complete the process within five days.
Evidence of peer review
For the purposes of evidence of peer review, the author is provided with at least two reviews of their papers with comments after the process is completed. An employer or any other quality control organisation can request this evidence from us, and we can make it available.