Opera News: Journal of Music and Performing Arts relies on independent peer review to maintain the originality, scholarly quality, ethical integrity, and relevance of its published content.

Reviewers assist the editors by evaluating whether a manuscript:

• Makes an original contribution to music or the performing arts; 
• Uses an appropriate research, analytical, historical, critical, or practice-based approach; 
• Engages adequately with relevant scholarship and artistic practice; 
• Presents evidence, interpretation, and conclusions clearly; 
• Meets applicable ethical and professional standards; and 
• Is suitable for publication in the journal. 

The reviewer’s report is advisory. The final decision concerning acceptance, revision, or rejection remains with the journal’s editors.

The journal uses a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers are informed of the identities and affiliations of the authors, but the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Research articles are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when:

• The manuscript covers several specialist areas; 
• The reviewers provide substantially conflicting recommendations; 
• Specialist methodological or artistic expertise is required; 
• Ethical, statistical, archival, linguistic, or technical questions arise; or 
• The editor considers further evaluation necessary. 

Reviewers must not reveal their identities in the report unless disclosure has been expressly authorized by the journal.

Before accepting an invitation, the reviewer should consider whether they:

• Have appropriate expertise to evaluate the manuscript; 
• Can provide an objective and independent assessment; 
• Can complete the review within the requested period; 
• Have no financial, professional, institutional, personal, or intellectual conflict of interest; 
• Can maintain complete confidentiality; and 
• Can evaluate the manuscript in the language in which it is submitted. 

A reviewer should decline the invitation when the manuscript falls substantially outside their expertise or when circumstances may prevent an impartial and timely review.

When declining, reviewers may recommend alternative experts, provided that the suggested individuals are suitably qualified and do not have an evident conflict of interest with the authors.

Accepting a review invitation creates a professional obligation to provide a thoughtful, evidence-based, and timely report.

All manuscripts, supplementary materials, editorial correspondence, reviewer reports, and related information must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript with students, colleagues, or third parties without editorial permission; 
• Discuss the manuscript or its findings with anyone outside the review process; 
• Contact the authors directly; 
• Use unpublished arguments, data, recordings, images, scripts, musical examples, or creative ideas for personal advantage; 
• Cite or circulate the manuscript before publication; 
• Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review; or 
• Upload confidential materials to unauthorized external services or artificial-intelligence systems. 

A reviewer who wishes to involve a qualified co-reviewer, early-career researcher, or trainee must first obtain permission from the editor. Any approved contributor must be identified so that their contribution can be formally recognized.

Confidentiality continues after the review has been submitted and after the editorial decision has been issued.

Reviewers must disclose any relationship or circumstance that could influence, or reasonably appear to influence, their judgment.

Possible conflicts include:

• Recent collaboration with an author; 
• Employment at the same institution as an author; 
• A current or recent supervisory relationship; 
• A close personal, family, or professional relationship; 
• Direct academic competition; 
• Financial interests connected to the manuscript; 
• Participation in the research, production, performance, or project under review; 
• Prior access to or involvement with the manuscript; 
• Strong personal or professional disputes with an author; or 
• A direct interest in the acceptance or rejection of the work. 

A reviewer should not assume that knowing an author automatically creates a conflict. The relevant question is whether the relationship could impair, or appear to impair, independent judgment.

When uncertain, the reviewer should disclose the situation to the editor and allow the editor to determine whether the review may proceed.

Reviewers should assess the manuscript fairly, respectfully, and solely on its academic or artistic merits.

Reviewers must not discriminate on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, institutional affiliation, professional status, or theoretical position.

Reviewers should notify the editor confidentially when they identify possible concerns involving:

• Plagiarism or unattributed copying; 
• Duplicate or redundant publication; 
• Fabricated or falsified evidence; 
• Manipulated images, audio, video, or musical examples; 
• Invented or inaccurate references; 
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest; 
• Inappropriate authorship; 
• Missing ethical approval or informed consent; 
• Unauthorized use of photographs, recordings, scores, scripts, lyrics, or archival material; 
• Breaches of privacy or confidentiality; 
• Culturally restricted or sensitive material used without appropriate permission; or 
• Substantial overlap with another publication known to the reviewer. 

Reviewers should describe the concern precisely and, where possible, identify the relevant passage or source. Allegations should not be included in comments visible to the authors unless the editor specifically requests this.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors. The editor will determine the appropriate procedure.

Reviewers should evaluate each manuscript according to its article type, disciplinary context, methodology, and intended contribution.

The review should consider the following areas:

Relevance: Is the manuscript appropriate for the journal’s aims and scope?

Originality: Does it offer a new argument, interpretation, method, dataset, case study, artistic insight, or critical perspective?

Significance: Does the work make a meaningful contribution to opera, musicology, performance studies, theatre, dance, vocal or instrumental performance, stage production, or a related field?

Research question: Are the objectives, questions, or central arguments clearly defined?

Engagement with scholarship: Does the manuscript demonstrate appropriate knowledge of relevant literature, creative practice, and current debates?

Methodology: Is the research, analytical, historical, archival, ethnographic, theoretical, or practice-based approach appropriate and adequately explained?

Evidence: Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by sufficient evidence?

Organization: Is the manuscript logically structured and easy to follow?

Clarity: Is the writing clear, coherent, and suitable for the intended scholarly audience?

References: Are citations relevant, accurate, balanced, and presented consistently in MLA style?

Ethics: Have ethical approval, informed consent, copyright permissions, funding, competing interests, and other required declarations been addressed?

Conclusion: Does the conclusion follow from the analysis and clearly explain the contribution of the work?

Reviewers should distinguish between essential revisions that affect validity or interpretation and optional suggestions intended to improve presentation.

The journal publishes work across music and the performing arts. Reviewers should apply criteria appropriate to the manuscript’s subject and methodology rather than requiring every submission to follow the structure of an empirical research article.

For historical and archival studies, reviewers should consider the quality of the sources, contextual accuracy, transparency of archival methods, and strength of interpretation.

For musicological and theoretical studies, reviewers should examine analytical accuracy, engagement with relevant theory, clarity of terminology, and the relationship between musical evidence and the argument.

For performance studies, reviewers should assess the treatment of embodiment, spectatorship, cultural context, interpretation, documentation, and performance conditions.

For theatre, opera, and production studies, reviewers should consider dramaturgy, directing, scenography, staging, rehearsal processes, production history, and the relationship between text, music, performance, and audience.

For dance and movement studies, reviewers should evaluate the documentation and interpretation of choreography, embodiment, movement vocabulary, cultural context, and performance practice.

For practice-based or artistic research, reviewers should consider:

• Whether the creative process is clearly documented; 
• Whether the research question or artistic problem is identifiable; 
• Whether practice and critical reflection are meaningfully connected; 
• Whether the methodology is transparent; 
• Whether the supporting media are sufficient and accessible; and 
• Whether the work produces an identifiable scholarly or artistic contribution. 

For reviews, essays, interviews, and commentaries, the reviewer should evaluate critical depth, contextual understanding, accuracy, fairness, and relevance rather than expecting a conventional empirical methodology.

Reviewers should assess whether figures, tables, photographs, musical examples, scores, audio recordings, video recordings, scripts, and supplementary files are necessary, accurate, legible, and appropriately discussed in the manuscript.

The review should consider whether:

• Each item is cited in the main text; 
• Captions are clear and complete; 
• Musical notation and specialist symbols are readable; 
• Tables accurately represent the reported information; 
• Audio and video files support the manuscript’s analysis; 
• Permissions and source acknowledgments appear adequate; 
• Images or recordings involving identifiable individuals have appropriate consent;  
• Material has been altered in a potentially misleading manner; and 
• Supplementary content adds scholarly value rather than duplicating the article. 

Reviewers should report technical or accessibility problems, such as unreadable notation, missing files, broken links, incomplete transcripts, low-resolution images, or media that cannot be evaluated.

Reviewers are not expected to determine legal ownership conclusively, but they should alert the editor to evident copyright or permission concerns.

The report should be clear, specific, constructive, and sufficiently detailed to help both the editor and the authors.

A useful review normally contains:

1. A brief summary of the manuscript’s subject, approach, and principal contribution; 
2. An overall assessment of its originality, significance, and suitability; 
3. Major comments concerning arguments, evidence, methodology, interpretation, ethics, or structure; 
4. Minor comments concerning clarity, terminology, citations, tables, figures, musical examples, or presentation; and 
5. A publication recommendation. 

Reviewers should number their comments and refer to page numbers, paragraph numbers, section headings, figure numbers, table numbers, musical-example numbers, or quoted opening words wherever possible.

Comments should explain both the problem and the revision required. For example, instead of writing “the literature review is weak,” the reviewer should identify the omitted area, explain why it matters, and indicate how the discussion could be strengthened.

Reviewers should avoid:

• Rewriting the entire manuscript according to personal stylistic preferences; 
• Requiring authors to adopt the reviewer’s own theoretical position; 
• Demanding irrelevant citations; 
• Requesting citation of the reviewer’s work solely to increase citations; 
• Recommending unnecessary expansion; 
• Making unsupported allegations; 
• Using insulting, dismissive, or sarcastic language; or 
• Providing contradictory recommendations to the editor and authors. 

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor when necessary. These comments should not contain substantive criticisms that are withheld from the authors unless confidentiality is required for ethical or legal reasons.

Reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes. Only minor production corrections may remain.

Minor Revision: The manuscript is fundamentally sound but requires limited changes that do not alter its central argument, methodology, or conclusions.

Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial changes to its analysis, methodology, structure, evidence, interpretation, ethical documentation, or presentation.

Resubmit for Review: Extensive revision is required, and the revised manuscript should undergo a new round of external assessment.

Reject: The manuscript has fundamental problems that cannot reasonably be corrected through revision, falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, or does not meet scholarly or ethical standards.

The recommendation should be consistent with the substance of the report. A reviewer recommending rejection should explain the decisive reasons clearly. A reviewer recommending revision should distinguish mandatory changes from optional suggestions.

Reviewers should not communicate acceptance or rejection directly to the authors. The editor may reach a different decision after considering all reports and the broader editorial context.

The journal is committed to a rapid but rigorous review process. Reviewers are normally requested to return their reports within 10–14 days of accepting the invitation.

A reviewer who requires additional time should contact the editorial office as early as possible. When a substantial delay is expected, the reviewer should decline the invitation so that another expert can be appointed.

Reviewers may use basic spelling, grammar, or reference-management tools, but they must not upload the manuscript or substantial confidential content to publicly accessible generative artificial-intelligence systems.

Artificial-intelligence tools must not be used to:

• Produce the substantive evaluation in place of the reviewer; 
• Make the publication recommendation independently; 
• Identify confidential authors or research participants; 
• Reconstruct unpublished creative or scholarly material; 
• Generate unsupported allegations; 
• Fabricate references or evidence; or 
• Circumvent the reviewer’s responsibility for the final report. 

The reviewer remains personally responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and intellectual content of the review.

After submitting the report, reviewers should:

• Delete locally stored manuscript files when they are no longer required; 
• Maintain confidentiality regarding the manuscript and decision; 
• Respond to reasonable editorial questions about their report; 
• Evaluate a revised version when invited and available; 
• Check whether the authors addressed the essential review points; and 
• Avoid introducing entirely new demands during later rounds unless new concerns arise from the revision.