IJCM Guidelines for Reviewers 

If a manuscript is considered lacking in potential to contribute meaningfully to knowledge and understanding in community music, the role of the reviewer is to offer an explanation that briefly articulates why the manuscript does not make a worthy contribution to the field.

If a manuscript is deemed to have the potential to contribute meaningfully to knowledge and understanding in community music, the role of the reviewer is to offer critical and insightful feedback to the author(s) so they may improve their manuscript.

Reviews should generally be a minimum of 500 words. Many reviews are approximately 1000 words long, although some reviews may require more length.    

General Principles 

  • To what extent has the manuscript situated itself in relation to the field of community music?
  • Does the manuscript sufficiently advance knowledge and understanding in the field?
  • To what extent has the author acknowledged or presented their positionality in relation to the research and how this might bear on the reporting? 

Empirical Studies

  • If people (“human subjects”) are involved, has an ethics statement been provided?
  • To what extent does the manuscript make clear its assumptions about the nature of knowledge?
  • To what extent have key concepts/constructs and ideas been elucidated?
  • To what extent does the manuscript make “hard” claims about the world? What is regarded as evidence for these claims?  
    • If descriptive/interpretative (e.g., ethnographic, autoethnographic), to what extent does the author acknowledge or surface their subjectivity in relation to the research? 
    • If based on generated data (e.g., interview, questionnaire), to what extent has the author been transparent about the “instrument” (be that questionnaire, interview, etc.), the process, the "sample,” how the sample was determined/recruited, the relationship of the sample to the population of interest, and the unit(s) of analysis?  To what extent does the author demonstrate awareness that gathered data represent self-reported perceptions and opinions? 

Philosophical, Theoretical, or Conceptual Discussion

  • Has the author demonstrated sufficient command of the literature? To what extent has the author balanced subjective commentary and engagement with the literature (i.e., the voices of others)?
  • To what extent is the argumentation clear, logical, and supported?

Project Reports

  • To what extent has the author connected their project(s) to previously reported-on projects? Is the review of literature both appropriate and sufficient to critically ground the article?
  • Has the author been reflective and critical, or is the manuscript a surreptitious form of self-promotionIf people are involved, has an ethics statement been provided?
  • Have the participants been informed of the article? Have they given consent?

After due consideration, could you please choose one of the following recommendations for the editor:

o  Accept (pending minor revisions)
o  Revise and resubmit for review
o  Reject

Please offer additional comments and provide feedback to authors about faults in their paper and specific suggestions for improvements. Even if the article is rejected, your comments may result in greatly improved resubmissions, or new submissions, to this journal or other journals at a later date. Your anonymous status may make it seem like a thankless task, but the peer review system is critical to the quality of academic journals. As an author, we're confident that you have appreciated the feedback you have received in the past as a result of a peer review system.

You may enter your review in the text box, but we encourage you to also save your comments in a file for your records and then upload that file, too.  This is a precaution, because sometimes reviews can get lost.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.