Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure recognizes peer review as a central part of responsible scholarly publishing. Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts with integrity, confidentiality, fairness, respect, and academic independence.

This policy explains the ethical responsibilities of reviewers invited to assess manuscripts submitted to the journal. It should be read together with the journal’s Peer Review Process, Reviewer Guidelines, Review Criteria, Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, and AI and Research Integrity Policy.

1. General Ethical Principle

Reviewers should provide honest, objective, constructive, and confidential evaluations. Their role is to assist editors in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality, clarity, rigor, and scholarly contribution of their manuscripts.

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, methodological clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to dance studies, embodied research, choreography, movement analysis, performance studies, artistic research, and related interdisciplinary fields.

2. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, cite, discuss, reproduce, or use the manuscript or its contents without permission from the journal.

Reviewers must not disclose manuscript content to students, colleagues, collaborators, artists, performers, institutions, communities, or other third parties unless the editor has explicitly approved such consultation.

Unpublished materials obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, artistic, financial, institutional, or professional advantage.

3. Confidentiality of Review Reports

Review reports, editorial correspondence, reviewer identities, and peer review discussions must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share their review reports publicly or privately without permission from the journal.

Reviewers should not reveal their identity to the author during a double-blind review process unless the journal has approved another arrangement.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately.

Conflicts of interest may include:

• Current or recent collaboration with the author;
• Current or recent institutional affiliation with the author;
• Supervisory, student, mentoring, examination, or close professional relationship with the author;
• Personal friendship, family relationship, romantic relationship, or other close personal connection with the author;
• Direct academic competition, dispute, or hostility;
• Financial, institutional, or professional interest in the manuscript’s outcome;
• Involvement in the performance, choreographic work, artistic project, archive, community, festival, company, or case being analyzed;
• Ownership of copyright, performance rights, documentation rights, data, or intellectual property related to the manuscript;
• Any situation that may reasonably compromise impartial judgment.

5. Objectivity and Impartiality

Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and impartially. Reviews should be based on the quality of the manuscript and not on the reviewer’s personal preferences, theoretical commitments, institutional interests, national background, cultural assumptions, or personal relationships.

Reviewers should avoid allowing disagreement with the author’s perspective, method, theoretical position, or field tradition to become a basis for unfair judgment.

6. Respectful and Constructive Language

Reviewers should write comments in a professional, respectful, and constructive tone. Criticism should address the manuscript’s argument, method, evidence, structure, ethics, references, or presentation, not the author personally.

Reviewers should avoid:

• Personal criticism of the author;
• Insulting, dismissive, discriminatory, or hostile language;
• Unsubstantiated accusations;
• Vague negative judgments without explanation;
• Comments based on personal preference rather than scholarly reasoning;
• Language that undermines fairness, dignity, or academic professionalism.

7. Timeliness and Responsibility

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they can complete the review within the requested timeframe. If additional time is needed, reviewers should inform the Editorial Office as early as possible.

If a reviewer becomes unable to complete the review after accepting the invitation, the reviewer should notify the Editorial Office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

8. Competence and Scope of Expertise

Reviewers should accept review invitations only when they have sufficient expertise to evaluate the manuscript responsibly.

If a manuscript falls partly outside the reviewer’s expertise, the reviewer should make this clear to the editor. Reviewers may still provide useful comments on areas within their competence, but they should not overstate their authority on unfamiliar methods, cultural contexts, artistic traditions, languages, or disciplinary debates.

9. Integrity of the Review Process

Reviewers must not attempt to manipulate the peer review process. They should not use the review process to promote personal, institutional, theoretical, artistic, ideological, or financial interests.

Reviewers must not:

• Delay a review for competitive advantage;
• Use confidential manuscript content before publication;
• Recommend rejection for personal or competitive reasons;
• Demand irrelevant citations to their own work or to preferred authors;
• Share the manuscript without permission;
• Contact the author directly about the manuscript during review;
• Attempt to identify the author in a double-blind review process.

10. Citation Ethics

Reviewers may suggest additional references where they are directly relevant and necessary to improve the manuscript. Citation suggestions should be made for scholarly reasons only.

Reviewers should not engage in coercive citation practices. They should not require authors to cite the reviewer’s own work, the editor’s work, or unrelated publications unless the suggested sources are clearly relevant to the manuscript.

11. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

Reviewers should notify the editor if they identify possible ethical or integrity concerns during review. Such concerns should be reported in the confidential comments to the editor and should be described specifically and carefully.

Possible concerns may include:

• Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
• Duplicate submission or redundant publication;
• Fabricated references, interviews, field notes, archival materials, or research data;
• Manipulated images, videos, movement records, or performance documentation;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Missing ethics approval or unclear consent procedures;
• Unauthorized use of copyrighted materials;
• Misrepresentation of cultural, community, ritual, Indigenous, local, or restricted materials;
• Inappropriate or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence tools;
• Peer review manipulation or authorship concerns.

Reviewers should not make unsupported accusations. Concerns should be based on specific observations, evidence, or reasonable grounds for further editorial assessment.

12. Research Involving Human Participants

Reviewers should pay attention to ethical issues where manuscripts involve human participants, interviews, fieldwork, rehearsal observation, classroom observation, bodily participation, workshops, surveys, community research, oral history, or performance documentation.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript appropriately addresses:

• Ethics approval or exemption;
• Informed consent;
• Participant privacy and confidentiality;
• Use of identifiable images, videos, audio, or bodily data;
• Protection of minors or vulnerable participants;
• Respect for performers, students, communities, and collaborators;
• Data availability and restrictions;
• Potential harm caused by publication or disclosure.

13. Cultural Sensitivity and Community Materials

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts involving traditional dance, ritual movement, Indigenous knowledge, local community practices, religious performance, community archives, or culturally restricted materials with care and respect.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript avoids misrepresentation, unauthorized disclosure, stereotyping, extraction, or inappropriate use of culturally sensitive knowledge or practices.

If reviewers identify concerns about community consent, cultural protocols, or restricted materials, they should notify the editor confidentially.

14. Copyright, Permissions, and Third-Party Materials

Reviewers should be alert to possible copyright, licensing, permission, or rights issues involving images, videos, music, scores, scripts, archival documents, notation, diagrams, screenshots, performance photographs, or other third-party materials.

If visual or multimedia materials appear to lack proper credit, permission, or ethical explanation, reviewers should inform the editor.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct a legal investigation, but they should raise concerns when rights issues are apparent or likely.

15. Images, Video, and Performance Documentation

Because dance and performance research often depends on visual and embodied documentation, reviewers should assess whether such materials are used responsibly and analytically.

Reviewers may consider whether:

• Images and videos are necessary for the argument;
• Captions and credits are accurate;
• Identifiable individuals are treated ethically;
• Permissions and consent appear to be addressed;
• Documentation is not manipulated or presented misleadingly;
• AI-generated or reconstructed materials are clearly disclosed.

16. Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, figures, images, data, supplementary files, or confidential editorial materials to artificial intelligence tools, external platforms, or third-party systems without explicit permission from the journal.

Manuscripts under review are confidential. Uploading them to AI tools may compromise confidentiality, copyright, privacy, participant consent, cultural restrictions, or unpublished research rights.

17. Artificial Intelligence and Reviewer Judgment

Reviewers may not use artificial intelligence tools as a substitute for their own scholarly judgment. A review report must reflect the reviewer’s own expertise, assessment, reasoning, and responsibility.

If reviewers use tools for limited language assistance in drafting their own comments, they must ensure that confidentiality is not compromised and that the final report is accurate, fair, independent, and fully reviewed by the reviewer.

18. Data, Evidence, and Methodological Integrity

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents data, evidence, documentation, and methods transparently and responsibly.

Where applicable, reviewers may consider whether:

• The data or materials support the claims made;
• The method is clearly explained;
• The analysis follows logically from the evidence;
• Limitations are acknowledged;
• Data availability or access restrictions are explained;
• Evidence has not been selectively or misleadingly presented.

19. Reviewing Practice-Based Research Ethically

Reviewers should evaluate practice-based and practice-led research according to appropriate scholarly and artistic-research standards.

Reviewers should recognize that practice-based research may involve embodied knowledge, artistic process, collaboration, rehearsal documentation, creative uncertainty, and reflective analysis. However, such manuscripts must still demonstrate methodological clarity, ethical awareness, and scholarly contribution.

Reviewers should pay attention to the ethical treatment of collaborators, performers, students, communities, audiences, and artistic materials.

20. Respect for Interdisciplinary and Regional Diversity

The journal welcomes international and interdisciplinary research. Reviewers should be attentive to differences in scholarly traditions, artistic practices, terminology, archives, performance contexts, and cultural frameworks.

Reviewers should not reject a manuscript merely because it does not follow the reviewer’s preferred disciplinary tradition, theoretical school, regional canon, or methodological style. Instead, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript’s own framework is clear, rigorous, and appropriate to its aims.

21. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may use confidential comments to communicate concerns that should not be shared directly with the author. These comments should be professional, specific, and relevant to editorial decision-making.

Confidential comments may address:

• Ethical concerns;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Possible plagiarism or duplicate publication;
• Possible fabrication or manipulation;
• Concerns about permissions or consent;
• Concerns about reviewer identity or review process integrity;
• Reasons for a recommendation that require editorial context.

22. Direct Communication with Authors

Reviewers should not contact authors directly about a manuscript under review. All communication should take place through the Editorial Office or journal platform.

Direct contact may compromise confidentiality, fairness, anonymity, and the integrity of the peer review process.

23. Use of Unpublished Material

Reviewers must not use ideas, arguments, data, images, movement analyses, artistic concepts, performance documentation, or other unpublished materials from a manuscript before publication without permission from the author and journal.

This applies even if the manuscript is rejected or withdrawn.

24. Reviewer Anonymity

The journal normally uses double-blind peer review for research articles, review articles, practice-based research articles, methodological notes, and performance or choreographic analyses.

Reviewers should avoid including identifying information in review reports unless the journal has approved an open or signed review arrangement.

25. Fairness in Recommendation

Reviewers should ensure that their final recommendation is consistent with their written assessment. A recommendation should be supported by clear reasoning and should distinguish between major concerns and minor issues.

Reviewers should not recommend rejection for issues that could reasonably be addressed through revision, unless the manuscript has fundamental problems in scope, originality, method, ethics, evidence, or scholarly contribution.

26. Responsibility When Reviewing Revised Manuscripts

When reviewing a revised manuscript, reviewers should assess whether the author has addressed previous comments adequately and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.

Reviewers should avoid introducing entirely new major objections at the revision stage unless new problems have emerged or serious issues were previously overlooked.

27. Reporting Reviewer Misconduct

Editors, authors, readers, or other reviewers may raise concerns about reviewer misconduct. Reviewer misconduct may include breach of confidentiality, undisclosed conflict of interest, discriminatory comments, coercive citation, misuse of unpublished materials, false claims, or inappropriate use of AI tools.

Concerns should be submitted to the Editorial Office with relevant information. The journal will assess such concerns in accordance with its Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Complaints and Appeals policy.

28. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

This policy should be read together with the journal’s related policies, including:

• Reviewer Guidelines;
• Review Criteria;
• Peer Review Process;
• Publication Ethics;
• Conflict of Interest Policy;
• AI and Research Integrity Policy;
• Data Availability Policy;
• Copyright and Licensing;
• Complaints and Appeals.

29. Contact

Reviewers with questions about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, ethical concerns, AI use, review expectations, deadlines, or reviewer responsibilities may contact the Editorial Office through the journal’s official contact page.

30. Editorial Note

Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure values peer reviewers as essential contributors to scholarly quality and publication integrity. Ethical reviewing requires confidentiality, fairness, expertise, respect, transparency, and independence. Reviewers are expected to uphold these responsibilities throughout the review process.