Reviewers are integral volunteers in the scholarly communication system, serving to validate academic research and improve the quality of content published in NRIHS. Since NRIHS follows the Code of Conduct and policies of COPE (https://publicationethics.org), reviewers are expected to adhere to the highest ethical and professional standards.
I. Ethical Duties and Objectivity
A. Confidentiality and Trust
Manuscripts sent for review must be treated as confidential documents.
• No Sharing: Reviewers must not share the review, the manuscript, or information about the paper with anyone else, nor contact the authors directly, unless explicitly permitted by the editor.
• Non-Use of Material: Unpublished information or ideas obtained through the peer review process must be kept strictly confidential and must not be used for personal advantage or in the reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author.
• AI Confidentiality Breach: Reviewers are prohibited from uploading a submitted manuscript, or any part of it, into a generative AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM) (such as ChatGPT). This action is disallowed because it violates the authors' confidentiality, proprietary rights, and data privacy rights concerning their unpublished work.
B. Conflicts of Interest (Competing Interests)
Reviewers must maintain objectivity and declare any potential conflicts of interest immediately.
• Disclosure: If a reviewer believes a competing interest exists (e.g., collaborations with the authors in the last three years, shared institution, or professional/financial connections to the research), they must inform the editor before agreeing to conduct the review.
• Recusal: If a potential bias is identified, the reviewer should discuss with the editor whether they should recuse themselves to ensure an objective opinion.
• Citation Manipulation: Reviewers must not suggest citations to their own work or that of their associates unless the suggestions are for genuine scholarly reasons and are fully justified. Requests for unnecessary citations to artificially influence metrics are considered unethical.
C. Reviewer Conduct
Reviews must be conducted objectively and constructively.
• No Personal Criticism: Personal criticism of the author is considered inappropriate. Reviewers must be courteous and professional, expressing their views clearly with supporting arguments.
• Ethical Alert: Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism, redundant publication, or substantial similarity between the manuscript and any other published work known to the reviewer, and bring these to the editor's attention.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should only accept an invitation if they are qualified and certain that they can complete the review promptly within the agreed timeframe.
II. Content of the Review Report
The review report (read more about preparing a review report: https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.1.231) serves two purposes: to inform the editor’s decision and to help the author improve the paper. All statements should be justified and argued in detail, citing supporting references where necessary.
Reviewers should assess the manuscript against the following criteria:
• Originality and Significance: Does the paper present novel research or significantly advance existing knowledge in the field of performing arts and music? Is the research question important and relevant to the journal's scope? If conclusions are not original, relevant references should be provided.
• Methodology and Data: Is the design appropriate for answering the posed question? Is the methodology sufficiently detailed to permit replication by other researchers? Are the equipment and materials adequately described? Reviewers should check the validity of the approach, the quality of the data, and the appropriate use of statistics. Errors in statistics are common and require careful checking.
• Clarity and Structure: Is the language clear and concise? Does poor English make the argument difficult to follow (this should be noted for the editor, not corrected by the reviewer)? Does the abstract accurately reflect the content? Is the introduction clear on the research question and context?
• Results and Conclusions: Are the findings presented clearly, and are the claims reasonable and supported by the results presented in the paper? Do the conclusions logically tie together the various elements of the paper? Are the limitations of the research addressed?
• Figures and Tables: Are all illustrations, figures, and tables helpful, informative, and accurately representing the data? Are they presented consistently?
• Research Implications: Does the paper bridge the gap between theory and practice? What are the economic, commercial, teaching, public policy, or societal implications of the research findings?
III. Permitted Use of Generative AI in Reviewing
While uploading manuscripts to generative AI tools is strictly forbidden due to confidentiality concerns, reviewers may use generative AI tools solely for copy-editing purposes on their own review reports.
• Permitted Use (Copy-editing): A reviewer may use a generative AI tool/LLM to improve the structure, clarity of language, grammar, or readability of their review report.
• Mandatory Declaration: If any generative AI tool is used for this purpose, the reviewer must declare this usage transparently to the editorial team.
• Accountability: The reviewer remains responsible and accountable for the accuracy, rigor, and integrity of the entire review report. AI cannot replace the human expertise and critical assessment required for scientific evaluation.