Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Model

Peer Review Timeline

Peer Review Costs and Fees

Information for Peer Reviewers

Peer Review Model

All submissions to the Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy undergo initial review by the editors. Submissions that pass initial editorial screening will be peer reviewed by two to three anonymous readers. The Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy employs a double anonymous peer review model, in which peer reviewers will not be aware of the submitting authors' identity. In the case of a split decision, one of the co-editors or the executive editor will be included for feedback and discussion.

Peer Review Timeline

Manuscript submissions will be acknowledged via email upon receipt.

The editorial board sets a goal for decision within 60 days. Please note: JMTP does not accept unsolicited reviews. Authors should keep a copy of the manuscript to prevent unforeseen software malfunction.

Authors are typically given up to 30 days from the initial editorial recommendation to prepare a revision. When revisions are requested, reviewers will outline the key issues to be resolved in the revised version. The author may decline to resubmit their manuscript or resubmit with changes.

Upon resubmission, authors must provide a detailed list of changes made in response to reviewer feedback. If authors decline reviewer suggestions, they should provide a rationale.

A proof copy will be sent back to the authors prior to publication. This will allow the individuals to review copy-editing decisions prior to final publication.

Peer Review Costs and Fees

The Journal of Music Theory Pedagogy does not charge any review fees.

Information for Peer Reviewers

Please disclose any conflicts of interest. These can include awareness of the author’s identity or involvement in a project that directly conflicts with the submission.

Reviews should be structured as follows: 

  • State the verdict (Accept, Accept with minor revisions, Revise and resubmit, Reject). 
  • Summarize the article in your own words. This will help the author understand how clearly the article communicated their main points.
  • Summarize the article’s principal strengths. 
  • Summarize the article’s principal weaknesses. (Focus on structural items: thesis, quality of argument, originality, methodology, etc.) 
  • Deal with smaller items: proofreading, wording, etc.

Best practices for peer reviewers

  • Maintain a professional, constructive tone. Frame comments objectively. Avoid personal attacks or sarcasm. 
  • Avoid calling the author “you,” which can come across as personal or accusatory. Refer to them as “the author.” 
  • Use specific page, paragraph, and line numbers where necessary.