Peer Review Procedure

Initial review by the editorial team

Before being sent out for formal review, all submitted manuscripts are initially checked by the editorial team to determine whether they meet the MusAu editorial criteria. Manuscripts are rejected promptly if they are judged inappropriate with regard to our formal criteria.

Selecting referees for research articles

The editors select at least two referees on the basis of their expertise in the article's topic, the author-selected keywords, and, if possible, the suggestions and exclusions provided by the author. Reviewers are asked to abide strictly by the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

Selecting referees for special issues

Chapters for special issues are subjected to a two-tier quality check. First, the editorial team, consisting of the volume and MusAu editors, will review each chapter, providing critical feedback, and validating potential revisions. The revised chapter will then be evaluated by one referee, following the review criteria applied to stand-alone research articles.

Anonymity

MusAu adheres to a double-blind reviewing policy. The editors do not pass on any reviewer's identity either to the author or to other reviewers. Neither do they reveal the author's name to a reviewer. Although authors and reviewers are asked to not reveal their names to each other, both parties nevertheless may independently decide to identify themselves to the other.

Transparency and timing

MusAu is committed to timely editorial decisions and reviews and expects the review procedure to be finished within 3–6 weeks from online submission. Since we seek transparency with regard to our review procedure, articles are published with submission and review dates.

Review criteria

To be considered for publication in MusAu, a manuscript should meet a high standard of criteria. Referees are asked to evaluate a paper according to the following major aspects:

  • Formal correctness, suitability for MusAu
    • Does the author follow the MusAu policies and guidelines?
    • Is the paper interesting and understandable?
  • Originality and Relevance
    • Is the paper's topic of current relevance?
    • For whom is the paper relevant and how?
  • Organization and Presentation
    • Is the organization clear and easy to follow?
    • Is the material effectively presented?
  • Sources and References
    • Are references provided appropriately?
    • Are online sources reliable and hyperlinked?
  • Language and Style
    • Is the writing style correct and clear?
  • Errors

On the basis of these criteria, reviewers are asked to forward a final reasoned recommendation that will be the basis for the editors' decision to publish a paper:

  • Acceptable in present form and recommended for publication.
  • Acceptable with minor corrections; no further review necessary.
  • Requires moderate or major revision and a second review.
  • Not acceptable.

Final formatting and publishing

An article accepted for publication may still require some final editing and formatting. This can be done either during the review procedure or immediately after it.