Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure is committed to a rigorous, fair, transparent, and academically responsible peer review process. The journal evaluates manuscripts according to scholarly quality, originality, methodological clarity, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, and contribution to dance studies, embodied research, choreography, movement analysis, performance studies, and related interdisciplinary fields.

The journal normally uses a double-blind peer review process for research articles, review articles, practice-based research articles, methodological notes, and performance or choreographic analyses. In a double-blind review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other where possible.

1. Scope of Peer Review

The following article types are normally subject to editorial screening and double-blind peer review:

• Original Research Articles
• Review Articles
• Practice-Based Research Articles
• Methodological Notes
• Performance and Choreographic Analyses
• Commentaries or Field Reflections, where appropriate

Book reviews, performance reviews, interviews, editorials, and invited materials may be reviewed by the editorial team or by external reviewers where appropriate, depending on the nature of the submission.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions are first screened by the Editorial Office or assigned editors. The purpose of initial screening is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further review.

During initial screening, the editorial team may assess:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• Originality and scholarly contribution;
• Clarity of research question, argument, or practice-based inquiry;
• Appropriateness of methodology or analytical framework;
• Quality of academic writing and structure;
• Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements;
• Completeness of references and required statements;
• Ethical clarity, including consent, permissions, and use of visual or performance materials where applicable;
• Possible plagiarism, duplicate submission, or research integrity concerns.

Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope, incomplete, ethically unclear, insufficiently developed, or not prepared according to the journal’s requirements may be returned to the author or rejected without external review.

3. Desk Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected at the initial editorial screening stage without external peer review if it does not meet the journal’s basic requirements.

Reasons for desk rejection may include:

• The manuscript is outside the journal’s aims and scope;
• The manuscript lacks a clear scholarly argument or research contribution;
• The submission is primarily descriptive, promotional, or non-academic;
• The methodology or analytical approach is insufficiently developed;
• The manuscript contains serious language, formatting, or structural problems;
• The manuscript does not comply with ethical standards;
• The manuscript shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated content, or other integrity concerns;
• The manuscript is not suitable for the selected article type.

Desk rejection allows the journal to protect reviewer time and maintain editorial quality. Authors may submit a substantially revised manuscript as a new submission where appropriate.

4. Assignment to Editors

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to an editor with relevant academic expertise. The assigned editor oversees the review process, identifies suitable reviewers, evaluates reviewer reports, and makes a recommendation or editorial decision.

Editors are expected to handle manuscripts fairly, confidentially, and independently. Editors should not handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest with the author, institution, research project, artistic work, or subject matter.

5. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, scholarly record, methodological knowledge, and relevance to the manuscript’s topic. Reviewers may be specialists in dance studies, performance studies, embodied research, choreography, somatic studies, movement analysis, cultural studies, anthropology, philosophy, education, digital humanities, artistic research, or related fields.

When selecting reviewers, the editorial team considers:

• Subject expertise;
• Methodological or theoretical competence;
• Familiarity with the manuscript’s field, region, practice, or materials;
• Absence of conflicts of interest;
• Ability to provide a fair, constructive, and timely review.

The journal normally seeks at least two independent reviewer reports for manuscripts undergoing full peer review.

6. Double-Blind Review

The journal normally follows a double-blind peer review process. Authors should prepare the manuscript file in a way that does not reveal their identity where possible.

Authors should remove or anonymize:

• Author names and affiliations;
• Acknowledgments;
• Funding information that identifies the author or project;
• Self-identifying references where unnecessary;
• File metadata that may reveal author identity.

Reviewers are also expected to keep their identities confidential unless the journal has approved another review arrangement.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, respectful, and evidence-based evaluations. Reviews should help the editor make an informed decision and help authors improve the manuscript where revision is appropriate.

Reviewers should assess:

• Originality and contribution to the field;
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
• Clarity of research question, argument, or practice-based inquiry;
• Quality of theoretical engagement;
• Appropriateness and transparency of methodology;
• Strength of analysis, interpretation, or critical reflection;
• Use of relevant literature and references;
• Ethical handling of participants, communities, cultural practices, performance materials, images, and documentation;
• Quality of writing, organization, and presentation;
• Suitability of figures, tables, images, or multimedia materials where applicable.

Reviewers should not use confidential manuscript content for personal advantage or share the manuscript with others without permission from the editorial team.

8. Review Criteria

Manuscripts are evaluated according to the following general criteria:

• Relevance: The manuscript fits the journal’s focus on dance, embodiment, movement, choreography, performance, or related interdisciplinary fields.
• Originality: The manuscript offers new knowledge, interpretation, method, theory, evidence, or critical perspective.
• Scholarly Contribution: The manuscript contributes meaningfully to dance studies, embodied research, performance studies, artistic research, or related fields.
• Methodological Clarity: The research design, analytical method, or practice-based approach is clearly explained and appropriate.
• Theoretical Engagement: The manuscript engages relevant literature, concepts, and debates.
• Analytical Quality: The analysis is coherent, well supported, and critically developed.
• Ethical Compliance: The manuscript addresses consent, permissions, participant protection, cultural sensitivity, image use, and other ethical issues where applicable.
• Presentation: The manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, and properly formatted.

9. Review Timeline

The journal aims to conduct peer review in a timely and responsible manner. Review timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, article type, and the need for additional evaluation.

The usual editorial timeline is as follows:

• Initial editorial screening: normally within 1–3 weeks after submission;
• Peer review: normally within 4–8 weeks after reviewer assignment;
• First decision: normally within 6–10 weeks after submission, where reviewer reports are received on time;
• Revision assessment: normally within 2–4 weeks after resubmission, depending on the extent of revision;
• Production after acceptance: normally within 2–4 weeks after final acceptance and completion of required publication materials.

These timelines are indicative rather than guaranteed. Delays may occur when suitable reviewers are difficult to secure, when reviewer reports are delayed, or when ethical, methodological, or editorial issues require further assessment.

10. Editorial Decisions

After reviewing the manuscript and reviewer reports, the editor may make one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any final editorial or production requirements.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before it can be accepted.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revision and may be sent for further review.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript has potential but requires major restructuring, additional evidence, methodological clarification, or substantial rewriting before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Acceptance is not guaranteed after revision. Revised manuscripts are evaluated based on how effectively authors address reviewer and editor comments and whether the manuscript meets the journal’s academic and ethical standards.

11. Revisions

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response letter. The response letter should explain how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Authors should indicate where changes have been made in the manuscript. If the author disagrees with a reviewer’s recommendation, the response letter should provide a clear and respectful academic explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor or returned to the original reviewers, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

12. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

When reviewer reports differ significantly, the editor may evaluate the reports and make an independent judgment. The editor may also invite an additional reviewer where necessary.

Editorial decisions are not made by counting reviewer recommendations mechanically. The editor considers the quality, reasoning, evidence, and relevance of reviewer comments, together with the journal’s editorial standards.

13. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer reports, author information, or editorial discussions to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, cite, or use unpublished manuscript materials without permission from the journal and the author.

14. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that could affect, or be perceived to affect, their impartiality. Conflicts of interest may be financial, institutional, personal, academic, professional, artistic, or collaborative.

Examples of potential conflicts include:

• Recent collaboration with the author;
• Current or recent institutional affiliation with the author;
• Personal or professional relationship with the author;
• Direct competition or dispute with the author;
• Financial or institutional interest in the outcome of the review;
• Involvement in the artistic work, performance, project, archive, or community under review.

Where a conflict of interest exists, the editor or reviewer should decline involvement or inform the Editorial Office immediately.

15. Ethical Concerns During Review

If editors or reviewers identify possible ethical concerns during review, the manuscript may be paused for further assessment. Ethical concerns may include plagiarism, duplicate submission, fabricated data, manipulated images, lack of consent, copyright infringement, undisclosed conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of artificial intelligence, or misuse of culturally sensitive materials.

The Editorial Office may request clarification, supporting documentation, permissions, ethics approval information, or revised statements from the author before the review or publication process continues.

16. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents. Reviewers should not upload unpublished manuscripts, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial materials to artificial intelligence tools or external platforms unless explicitly permitted by the journal.

Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their reviews. Artificial intelligence tools must not replace the reviewer’s own scholarly judgment.

17. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a serious error, misunderstanding, procedural problem, or conflict of interest affected the decision.

Appeals should be submitted to the Editorial Office with a clear explanation and relevant supporting information. Appeals should focus on the editorial process, factual errors, or substantive scholarly issues. Disagreement with reviewer criticism alone does not normally constitute grounds for appeal.

The Editorial Office will review appeals according to the journal’s Complaints and Appeals policy. The outcome of an appeal may be to uphold the original decision, request further review, or reconsider the manuscript.

18. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is formally accepted only after the editor confirms that all academic, ethical, formatting, and editorial requirements have been satisfied.

After acceptance, the manuscript may proceed to copyediting, production, proofreading, metadata preparation, and online publication. Authors may be asked to provide final files, high-quality figures, permission documentation, author statements, and payment information where applicable.

19. Proof Review

Authors may be asked to review proofs before publication. Proof review is intended to correct typographical errors, formatting issues, metadata errors, figure problems, or minor production mistakes.

Major content changes are not normally permitted at the proof stage unless approved by the Editorial Office.

20. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on academic merit, relevance, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance, and contribution to the field. The publisher does not interfere with independent editorial decisions.

Payment of an Article Processing Charge, waiver status, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, race, religion, political view, or personal background does not influence editorial decisions.

21. Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the contribution of reviewers to academic quality and editorial integrity. Reviewer contributions may be acknowledged through certificates, annual recognition, or other appropriate forms, provided that reviewer confidentiality and editorial ethics are maintained.

22. Editorial Note

The peer review process is designed to support scholarly quality, fairness, and integrity. The Editorial Office reserves the right to modify review procedures where necessary to address manuscript type, ethical concerns, reviewer availability, special issues, invited submissions, or other editorial circumstances.

Meeting the formal requirements for peer review does not guarantee acceptance. Final publication decisions rest with the journal’s editorial team.