Authors must submit manuscripts and related files by email to:

submission@operanews.org

The email subject should follow this format:

Manuscript Submission – [Article Type] – [Short Article Title]

A complete submission should normally include:

• The manuscript in Microsoft Word format; 
• A cover letter; 
• A PDF copy when musical notation or specialist formatting requires it; 
• Separate high-resolution figures or musical examples; 
• Supplementary audio, video, or supporting files, where applicable; 
• Copyright-permission documents; 
• Ethical approval or informed-consent information, where required; and 
• Author declarations concerning funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and artificial-intelligence use. 

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the manuscript and consented to its submission.

After submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative and technical check. This stage normally takes approximately 1–3 days.

The editorial office verifies that:

• All required files have been submitted; 
• Author names, affiliations, and contact details are complete; 
• The manuscript is readable and properly organized; 
• The abstract and keywords are included where required; 
• Figures, tables, and musical examples are properly numbered; 
• References are presented in MLA style; 
• Required declarations are included; 
• Supplementary files can be accessed; 
• Copyright permissions are available where necessary; and 
• The manuscript is not obviously incomplete. 

Incomplete submissions may be returned to the corresponding author for correction before editorial assessment begins.

A qualified editor conducts an initial assessment, normally within 2–5 days of receiving a complete submission.

The editor evaluates:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope; 
• Suitability of the manuscript type; 
• Originality and potential contribution; 
• Academic, artistic, or practice-based quality; 
• Clarity and organization; 
• Methodological or interpretive adequacy; 
• Compliance with ethical standards; 
• Reference quality and accuracy; 
• Copyright and permission requirements; and 
• Overall readiness for external peer review. 

The manuscript may be:

• Sent for external peer review; 
• Returned for technical or editorial revision; 
• Reassigned to a more suitable section editor; 
• Placed on hold while an ethical or legal issue is investigated; or 
• Rejected without external review. 

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage when it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains fundamental methodological or ethical problems, is inadequately developed, or does not meet the journal’s minimum submission requirements.

Before or during peer review, the journal may examine the manuscript for originality and publication-integrity concerns.

Checks may address:

• Plagiarism;  
• Inappropriate text reuse; 
• Duplicate or redundant publication; 
• Fabricated or falsified information; 
• Invented quotations or references; 
• Manipulated images, audio, video, or musical examples; 
• Undisclosed authorship issues; 
• Missing ethical approval or consent; 
• Copyright infringement; and 
• Undisclosed substantial use of generative artificial intelligence. 

A similarity score alone does not determine the editorial decision. Editors examine the nature, location, context, and significance of any identified overlap.

The editorial process may be suspended while the authors provide explanations, original materials, permissions, data, recordings, or other supporting documentation.

Manuscripts approved for peer review are assigned to an appropriate editor, who normally invites at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Reviewers are selected according to:

• Subject knowledge; 
• Methodological or practice-based expertise; 
• Academic or professional experience; 
• Independence from the authors; 
• Absence of conflicts of interest; 
• Quality of previous review work; and 
• Ability to provide a timely assessment. 

Editors avoid reviewers who have close personal, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, financial, or professional relationships with the authors.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers in their cover letter, but the editor is not required to invite them. The journal independently verifies the expertise and identity of suggested reviewers.

The journal uses single-blind peer review. Reviewers know the identities of the authors, but reviewer identities remain confidential.

Reviewers are asked to assess:

• Originality and significance; 
• Relevance to music and the performing arts; 
• Strength of the research question or central argument; 
• Quality of the literature review; 
• Suitability of the methodology or analytical approach; 
• Accuracy and sufficiency of the evidence; 
• Quality of interpretation; 
• Clarity and organization; 
• Ethical compliance; 
• Appropriateness of figures, tables, scores, and media; 
• Accuracy and relevance of references; and 
• Overall suitability for publication. 

The target duration for external peer review is approximately 10–20 days. Reviewers may require additional time when a manuscript is technically complex, interdisciplinary, media-intensive, or highly specialized.

Editorials, interviews, performance reviews, book reviews, and other invited content may undergo editorial review rather than full external peer review. The Editor-in-Chief determines the appropriate level of assessment.

After receiving sufficient reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript and the recommendations.

The journal aims to provide a first editorial decision within approximately 15–25 days of submission.

Possible decisions include:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required, but the central argument, methodology, and conclusions are sound.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are required to the analysis, evidence, methodology, structure, interpretation, ethical documentation, or presentation.

Resubmit for Review: Extensive redevelopment is required, and the revised manuscript will undergo another full review.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision or is unsuitable for the journal.

The editor considers the quality and reasoning of the reviewer reports rather than deciding solely on the number of positive or negative recommendations. The final decision remains with the editor.

When revision is requested, the decision letter specifies the required changes and the deadline.

Authors should submit:

• A clean revised manuscript; 
• A version showing tracked or highlighted changes; 
• A detailed point-by-point response to all comments; 
• Revised figures, tables, musical examples, or supplementary files; and 
• Updated permissions or declarations where necessary. 

Each reviewer or editor comment should be reproduced in the response document, followed by a clear explanation of how it was addressed.

When an author does not accept a recommendation, the response should provide a respectful, scholarly, and evidence-based explanation.

The usual revision periods are:

• Minor revision: 7–14 days; 
• Major revision: 14–21 days; and 
• Extensive revision: A period specified by the editor. 

Reasonable extensions may be granted when requested before the deadline. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Minor revisions may be evaluated directly by the handling editor. Major or technically complex revisions may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to an additional specialist.

The editor assesses whether:

• All essential comments have been addressed; 
• The revised argument is clear and adequately supported; 
• Methodological concerns have been resolved; 
• New material is relevant and accurate; 
• Ethical and copyright requirements have been satisfied; 
• Figures, tables, notation, and supplementary media are suitable; 
• MLA citations and the Works Cited section are consistent; and 
• The manuscript meets the journal’s publication standards. 

The journal aims to evaluate a revised manuscript within approximately 3–10 days, depending on whether additional external review is required.

Further revision may be requested when important concerns remain unresolved.

The final publication decision is made by the handling editor, section editor, or Editor-in-Chief according to the journal’s editorial structure.

A manuscript is accepted only when it has satisfactorily met the journal’s:

• Scholarly and artistic standards; 
• Peer-review requirements; 
• Ethical requirements; 
• Authorship requirements; 
• Copyright and permission requirements; 
• Reference and documentation standards; and 
• Technical and presentation requirements. 

Acceptance decisions are based entirely on the quality, originality, relevance, and integrity of the manuscript. An author’s nationality, institutional affiliation, geographic location, financial circumstances, or ability to pay does not influence the decision.

The journal charges no fees because it follows a diamond open-access publishing model.

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production. This normally includes:

• Copyediting;  
• Language and consistency checks; 
• MLA reference checking; 
• Figure and musical-example preparation; 
• Typesetting;  
• Article metadata preparation; 
• Author proofreading; 
• Final editorial approval; and 
• Assignment to a monthly issue. 

The corresponding author receives page proofs and should return corrections within the period specified by the production editor.

At the proof stage, authors should correct only typographical errors, formatting problems, inaccurate author details, broken references, and minor factual errors. Major rewriting, new analysis, substantial new references, or authorship changes are not normally permitted after acceptance.

The journal aims to publish an accepted manuscript within approximately 1–3 weeks after completion of all production requirements.

All published articles are freely and immediately accessible under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0).

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, conflict of interest, serious misunderstanding, or procedural irregularity affected the outcome.

Appeals must be submitted to:

submission@operanews.org

The appeal should include:

• The manuscript title; 
• The original editorial decision; 
• The specific grounds for appeal; 
• A response to the disputed points; and 
• Supporting evidence where relevant. 

An appeal is normally evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. An appeal does not guarantee that the decision will be changed.

Authors must notify the journal promptly when they discover a significant error in a submitted or published article. Depending on the nature of the issue, the journal may publish a correction, editorial notice, expression of concern, or retraction.

Editorial Timeline Summary

These timelines are editorial targets rather than guaranteed deadlines. Processing time may vary according to reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality, copyright permissions, ethical concerns, supplementary media, and author response times.