Editors of Opera News: Journal of Music and Performing Arts are responsible for maintaining the journal’s scholarly quality, ethical integrity, editorial independence, and relevance to the fields of music and the performing arts.

All editorial decisions must be based on:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope; 
• Originality and significance; 
• Scholarly, artistic, or practice-based contribution; 
• Methodological or interpretive quality; 
• Accuracy and evidential support; 
• Ethical compliance; 
• Clarity of presentation; and 
• Overall suitability for publication. 

Decisions must not be influenced by an author’s nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, institutional affiliation, professional status, geographic location, political position, financial circumstances, or ability to pay.

The journal operates under a diamond open-access model. Authors pay no submission, processing, peer-review, or publication fees. Financial or institutional support for the journal must not influence editorial decisions.

Editors are expected to:

• Evaluate submissions fairly and promptly; 
• Protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and reviews; 
• Identify and disclose conflicts of interest; 
• Select suitably qualified and independent reviewers; 
• Ensure that peer review is constructive and rigorous; 
• Make decisions supported by the manuscript and reviewer reports; 
• Investigate ethical or integrity concerns appropriately; 
• Maintain accurate editorial records; 
• Communicate professionally with authors and reviewers; 
• Ensure compliance with journal policies; 
• Support corrections when errors are discovered; and 
• Protect the integrity of the published scholarly record. 

Editors should apply journal policies consistently while recognizing that appropriate methods and structures vary across musicology, performance studies, theatre, dance, opera, artistic research, and related disciplines.

The editorial structure may include an Editor-in-Chief, managing editors, associate editors, section editors, editorial board members, and guest editors.

Editor-in-Chief: Has overall responsibility for editorial standards, journal policy, difficult ethical cases, appeals, and final oversight of publication decisions.

Managing Editor: Coordinates submissions, correspondence, reviewer invitations, deadlines, production transfer, and editorial records.

Associate or Section Editor: Manages manuscripts within an assigned subject area and recommends or makes decisions within the authority granted by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Board Member: Advises the journal, reviews manuscripts, recommends reviewers, promotes editorial quality, and supports policy development.

Guest Editor: Manages manuscripts for an approved special issue or thematic collection while following all regular journal policies. Guest editors must not make decisions on their own submissions or on manuscripts involving close collaborators.

Editors may delegate administrative tasks, but responsibility for the fairness and integrity of the editorial process remains with the assigned editor.

Each new submission should undergo an initial editorial assessment, normally within 2–5 days.

The editor should determine whether the manuscript:

• Fits the journal’s aims and scope; 
• Represents an appropriate article type; 
• Contains a clear scholarly or artistic contribution; 
• Is sufficiently developed for external review; 
• Meets basic language and presentation standards; 
• Uses MLA citation and Works Cited style with reasonable consistency; 
• Contains the required declarations; 
• Includes readable figures, tables, scores, and musical examples; 
• Provides relevant copyright permissions where available; 
• Presents no evident ethical or publication-integrity concerns; and 
• Is not clearly unsuitable, incomplete, or previously published. 

A manuscript may be:

• Sent for external peer review; 
• Returned for technical correction; 
• Reassigned to a more suitable editor; 
• Rejected without external review; or 
• Temporarily placed on hold while an ethical, authorship, copyright, or originality issue is examined. 

A desk-rejection decision should provide a clear and respectful explanation. Common grounds may include lack of scope, insufficient originality, fundamental methodological weaknesses, poor scholarly development, duplicate publication, or failure to meet minimum submission requirements.

Editors must not use desk rejection merely because they disagree with an author’s theoretical, artistic, or interpretive position.

Editors must disclose any conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, their impartiality.

An editor should not handle a manuscript when they:

• Are an author or contributor; 
• Work at the same institution as an author; 
• Have recently collaborated with an author; 
• Have a close personal, family, supervisory, or financial relationship with an author; 
• Participated in the research, performance, production, or project; 
• Have a direct professional interest in the outcome; 
• Are involved in a serious professional dispute with an author; or 
• Cannot provide an independent assessment. 

The manuscript should be reassigned to an independent editor when a conflict exists.

Submissions from editors, editorial board members, or journal staff may be considered, but they must be handled by an independent editor. The submitting editor must have no access to reviewer selection, reviewer identities, reports, or decision-making beyond what is normally available to authors.

All manuscripts, correspondence, reviewer reports, supporting files, and editorial discussions are confidential. Editors must not:

• Share materials with unauthorized individuals; 
• Use unpublished ideas, evidence, recordings, or creative content for personal benefit; 
• Discuss a submission outside the editorial process; 
• Contact research participants without authorization; 
• Reveal reviewer identities; 
• Upload confidential content to unauthorized artificial-intelligence services; or 
• Retain unnecessary copies after the editorial process is complete. 

Confidentiality continues after a manuscript is rejected, withdrawn, or published.

Research manuscripts should normally be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise.

Reviewers should be selected according to:

• Knowledge of the manuscript’s subject; 
• Relevant publication, research, artistic, or professional experience; 
• Ability to evaluate the methodology or interpretive approach; 
• Independence from the authors; 
• Absence of significant conflicts of interest; 
• Reliability and previous review quality; and 
• Ability to complete the review within the requested period. 

Editors should avoid selecting reviewers who:

• Are employed at the same institution as an author; 
• Have recently co-authored with an author; 
• Have a recent supervisory or close collaborative relationship with an author; 
• Have a direct interest in the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript; 
• Were substantially involved in preparing the work; or 
• Are unable to provide an objective assessment. 

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered but are not automatically invited. Editors should independently verify their identity, expertise, institutional affiliation, and contact information. Reviewer recommendations submitted through unverifiable or non-institutional email accounts should receive additional scrutiny.

Editors should avoid relying repeatedly on a narrow reviewer group and should seek appropriate geographic, institutional, methodological, and disciplinary diversity.

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

Editors should explain the following expectations to reviewers:

• Manuscripts must be treated as confidential; 
• Reviews should be fair, evidence-based, and respectful; 
• Conflicts of interest must be disclosed; 
• Reviewer reports should distinguish major and minor issues; 
• Recommendations should be consistent with the written assessment; 
• Personal criticism and discriminatory language are unacceptable; 
• Unnecessary citation requests are prohibited; and 
• Reviewers must not contact authors directly. 

The normal target for external peer review is approximately 10–20 days. Editors should monitor invitations and send reminders where appropriate.

When a reviewer does not respond or cannot complete the review, the editor should invite a replacement promptly. Editorial speed must not be achieved by reducing the independence, number, or quality of the reviews.

Editors may seek an additional review when:

• Existing reports conflict substantially; 
• Specialist expertise is missing; 
• Ethical or methodological questions arise; 
• The manuscript covers several disciplines; 
• A revised manuscript contains substantial new material; or 
• The available reports do not provide an adequate basis for a decision. 

Editors must assess the quality of reviewer reports rather than simply count recommendations.

The editor should consider the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal scope, ethical requirements, and the significance of the contribution before reaching a decision.

Possible decisions are:

Accept: The manuscript meets publication requirements and requires no substantive revision.

Minor Revision: Limited changes are required, but the central argument, methodology, evidence, or conclusions are fundamentally sound.

Major Revision: Substantial changes are required to the argument, methodology, evidence, interpretation, organization, ethics documentation, or presentation.

Resubmit for Review: Extensive redevelopment is necessary, and the revised manuscript must undergo another full assessment.

Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of fundamental scholarly, methodological, ethical, originality, scope, or presentation problems.

The journal aims to issue a first decision within approximately 15–25 days of submission. This is an editorial target rather than a guaranteed deadline.

Decision letters should:

• State the decision clearly; 
• Summarize the principal reasons; 
• Distinguish required changes from optional suggestions; 
• Remove hostile, discriminatory, or irrelevant reviewer comments; 
• Reconcile contradictory reviewer requests where possible; 
• Provide a revision deadline; 
• Explain whether the revision will be returned to reviewers; and 
• Remind authors that revision does not guarantee acceptance. 

Editors should not send reviewer reports without reading them. Comments that reveal reviewer identities, contain personal attacks, request inappropriate citations, or make unsupported allegations should be edited or withheld.

The final decision remains with the editor and must not be determined automatically by reviewer recommendations.

Authors submitting a revision should normally provide:

• A clean revised manuscript; 
• A tracked-changes or highlighted version; 
• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments; and 
• Revised figures, tables, scores, permissions, or supplementary files where applicable. 

The editor should determine whether the authors have:

• Addressed each major concern; 
• Explained any recommendation they did not follow; 
• Preserved consistency throughout the manuscript; 
• Updated the abstract, conclusion, and references where necessary; 
• Corrected ethical or copyright deficiencies; 
• Avoided introducing unsupported claims or unrelated material; and 
• Maintained MLA citation and Works Cited consistency. 

Minor revisions may be assessed by the editor without returning the manuscript to reviewers. Major revisions should normally be returned to one or more original reviewers when specialist reassessment is needed.

Editors should avoid introducing a new series of nonessential requirements during successive review rounds. New requests should be limited to issues arising from the revision or important concerns that were genuinely overlooked earlier.

Suggested revision periods are approximately:

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

Reasonable extensions may be granted when requested before the deadline.

Editors must take concerns about research and publication ethics seriously while ensuring fairness to all parties.

Potential concerns include:

• Plagiarism;  
• Duplicate or redundant publication; 
• Fabricated or falsified evidence; 
• Manipulated images, audio, video, or musical examples; 
• Invented references or quotations; 
• Inappropriate authorship; 
• Undisclosed competing interests; 
• Missing ethical approval; 
• Lack of informed consent; 
• Unauthorized use of copyrighted material; 
• Breaches of privacy or confidentiality; 
• Misrepresentation of archival or cultural materials; 
• Unethical treatment of participants or communities; and 
• Undisclosed substantial use of generative artificial intelligence. 

Editors should not make accusations solely on the basis of suspicion. Concerns should be documented and assessed impartially.

When necessary, the editor may:

1. Request a confidential explanation from the corresponding author; 
2. Ask for original data, permissions, approvals, recordings, or supporting files; 
3. Consult an independent expert; 
4. Pause peer review or production; 
5. Refer the matter to the Editor-in-Chief; 
6. Contact an institution, funder, or ethics committee when justified; or 
7. Reject, correct, retract, or issue an expression of concern where appropriate. 

Authors should be given a reasonable opportunity to respond unless immediate action is required to prevent legal, ethical, or public harm.

Complaints involving reviewers or editors should be handled by an individual who was not involved in the original matter.

Editors should confirm that authors have appropriately addressed copyright and permissions for:

• Musical scores and notation; 
• Lyrics and libretti; 
• Scripts and dramatic texts; 
• Performance photographs; 
• Stage and costume designs; 
• Audio and video recordings; 
• Archival documents; 
• Screenshots;  
• Artwork; and 
• Identifiable participants. 

Third-party material must be clearly credited. Material not covered by the article’s Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0) should carry an appropriate rights statement.

Artificial-intelligence tools must not be listed as authors. Authors remain responsible for all content, references, interpretations, images, data, and declarations.

Substantive use of generative artificial intelligence should be disclosed. Editors should assess whether its use affected:

• Originality;  
• Accuracy;  
• Confidentiality;  
• Copyright;  
• authorship responsibility; 
• Data integrity; or 
• The authenticity of creative or scholarly material. 

Editors and reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts to unauthorized generative artificial-intelligence systems.

After acceptance, the editor should confirm that:

• The author names and affiliations are correct; 
• The final title, abstract, and keywords are accurate; 
• All declarations are present; 
• References follow MLA style; 
• Figures and musical examples are legible; 
• Permissions have been provided; 
• The CC BY 4.0 licence statement is included; 
• The final proof has been approved by the corresponding author; and 
• No substantial unreviewed changes were introduced during production. 

Accepted articles are normally prepared for publication within approximately one to three weeks, subject to completion of copyediting, typesetting, permissions, and proof approval.

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

An appeal should:

• Identify the manuscript and original decision; 
• Explain the specific grounds for appeal; 
• Address disputed points clearly; 
• Provide supporting evidence; and 
• Avoid merely repeating arguments already considered. 

An appeal should be assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or another senior editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision. The appeal may result in:

• Confirmation of the original decision; 
• Reconsideration by another editor; 
• Additional independent review; or 
• Reopening of the manuscript. 

An appeal does not guarantee a different outcome.

The editorial office should maintain accurate and confidential records of:

• Submission dates; 
• Assigned editors; 
• Reviewer invitations and responses; 
• Reviewer reports; 
• Conflicts-of-interest disclosures; 
• Editorial decisions; 
• Revised versions; 
• Ethical correspondence; 
• Permissions;  
• Appeals and complaints; 
• Acceptance dates; and 
• Production transfer. 

Editors should communicate only through approved journal channels and should preserve a complete record of substantive decisions.