Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure evaluates manuscripts according to academic quality, originality, methodological clarity, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. Reviewers are asked to provide fair, constructive, evidence-based assessments that help editors make responsible editorial decisions and help authors improve their work.

The review criteria below apply primarily to original research articles, review articles, practice-based research articles, methodological notes, performance and choreographic analyses, and commentaries or field reflections. Some criteria may be adapted according to the article type, research method, and subject matter.

1. Relevance to the Journal

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure.

The manuscript should contribute to one or more of the following fields or themes:

• Dance studies;
• Embodied knowledge and embodied practice;
• Choreography and composition;
• Movement structure and movement analysis;
• Performance studies;
• Somatic practices;
• Body-space relations;
• Gesture, rhythm, perception, and movement;
• Practice-based or practice-led artistic research;
• Dance anthropology, cultural studies, aesthetics, philosophy, education, digital humanities, or related interdisciplinary fields.

Manuscripts that are only loosely connected to dance, embodiment, choreography, movement, or performance may be considered outside the journal’s scope.

2. Originality

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript offers an original contribution to the field.

Originality may appear in different forms, including:

• A new research question;
• A new theoretical interpretation;
• A new analysis of a performance, choreographic work, archive, or practice;
• A new methodological approach;
• A new contribution to practice-based or practice-led research;
• A new historical, cultural, philosophical, pedagogical, technological, or interdisciplinary perspective;
• A new synthesis of existing scholarship.

The manuscript should not merely repeat established knowledge without adding a clear scholarly contribution.

3. Scholarly Contribution

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to dance studies, embodied research, choreography, performance studies, movement analysis, artistic research, or related fields.

A strong manuscript should clearly explain:

• What problem, debate, practice, or gap it addresses;
• Why the topic matters;
• How the argument or analysis advances existing scholarship;
• What readers can learn from the study;
• How the manuscript contributes to theory, method, practice, history, pedagogy, or criticism.

4. Clarity of Research Question or Purpose

The manuscript should have a clear research question, argument, analytical focus, or scholarly purpose.

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript clearly identifies:

• The main topic or object of study;
• The research problem or central question;
• The article’s main argument or purpose;
• The scope and limits of the study;
• The intended contribution to the field.

If the manuscript is practice-based, the reviewer should consider whether the relationship between artistic practice and research inquiry is clearly explained.

5. Engagement with Literature

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript engages appropriately with relevant academic literature.

The manuscript should demonstrate awareness of major debates, concepts, methods, and prior studies related to its topic. It should not rely only on general description or unsupported claims.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript:

• Uses relevant and current scholarship where appropriate;
• Engages with foundational works in the field;
• Situates the study within existing debates;
• Avoids excessive or irrelevant citation;
• Accurately represents cited sources;
• Includes literature from appropriate disciplinary, cultural, or regional contexts.

6. Theoretical Framework

Where applicable, the manuscript should present a clear theoretical framework or conceptual approach.

Reviewers should assess whether the theoretical framework is:

• Relevant to the research question;
• Clearly explained;
• Appropriately connected to the analysis;
• Used critically rather than mechanically;
• Consistent with the manuscript’s disciplinary and methodological orientation.

Theoretical concepts should help illuminate the material rather than obscure the argument.

7. Methodological Clarity

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript explains its methodology or analytical approach clearly and appropriately.

Depending on the article type, relevant methods may include:

• Performance analysis;
• Choreographic analysis;
• Movement analysis;
• Practice-based or practice-led research;
• Somatic inquiry;
• Ethnography or fieldwork;
• Interviews;
• Archival research;
• Historical analysis;
• Discourse analysis;
• Digital methods, motion capture, or media analysis;
• Comparative or theoretical analysis.

The method should be suitable for the research question and should be described in enough detail for readers to understand how the analysis was developed.

8. Quality of Analysis

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript provides a strong and coherent analysis.

A high-quality analysis should:

• Support claims with evidence, examples, documentation, or critical reasoning;
• Move beyond description toward interpretation and argument;
• Analyze movement, structure, gesture, rhythm, space, embodiment, or performance with appropriate specificity;
• Connect evidence to the manuscript’s theoretical or methodological framework;
• Avoid unsupported generalizations;
• Maintain logical progression throughout the discussion.

9. Evaluation of Practice-Based Research

For practice-based or practice-led submissions, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript presents artistic practice as a form of research inquiry.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript:

• Clearly explains the artistic or choreographic practice under discussion;
• Defines the research question or inquiry guiding the practice;
• Explains how practice functions as method, evidence, reflection, or knowledge production;
• Provides sufficient documentation or description of the practice process;
• Connects practice to relevant theory, method, or field context;
• Reflects critically on the limitations, tensions, or implications of the practice;
• Demonstrates scholarly contribution beyond artistic description.

10. Evaluation of Performance and Choreographic Analysis

For performance and choreographic analyses, reviewers should assess whether the manuscript offers detailed, critical, and well-contextualized interpretation.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript:

• Clearly identifies the performance, choreographic work, company, artist, venue, date, archive, or documentation source;
• Provides relevant historical, cultural, aesthetic, or theoretical context;
• Analyzes movement, rhythm, gesture, spatial arrangement, bodily technique, dramaturgy, or structure;
• Uses description selectively to support interpretation;
• Avoids purely promotional or journalistic language;
• Explains the broader significance of the work or case analyzed.

11. Interdisciplinary Integration

The journal welcomes interdisciplinary submissions. Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript integrates its disciplinary perspectives coherently.

Interdisciplinary work should not simply place different fields side by side. It should explain how the selected concepts, methods, or materials work together to support the argument.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript successfully connects dance and embodied research with fields such as:

• Anthropology;
• Cultural studies;
• Philosophy and aesthetics;
• Education and pedagogy;
• Digital humanities;
• Media studies;
• Movement science;
• Artificial intelligence and motion technologies;
• Archival studies;
• Community-based research.

12. Ethical Compliance

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript addresses relevant ethical issues clearly and responsibly.

Ethical issues may involve:

• Human participants;
• Interviews or oral histories;
• Fieldwork and ethnographic observation;
• Classroom, rehearsal, workshop, or community documentation;
• Images or videos of identifiable individuals;
• Minors or vulnerable groups;
• Traditional, ritual, Indigenous, local, or culturally sensitive practices;
• Consent, privacy, confidentiality, and data protection;
• Permission to use performance documentation, photographs, archival materials, or third-party content.

If reviewers identify possible ethical concerns, they should report them to the editor in the confidential comments section.

13. Copyright, Permissions, and Third-Party Materials

Reviewers should assess whether figures, images, videos, diagrams, movement maps, notation examples, archival materials, or other third-party materials appear to be properly credited and ethically used.

Reviewers may consider whether:

• Captions are complete and accurate;
• Sources and rights holders are identified where necessary;
• Permissions appear to be required and have been addressed;
• Visual materials are relevant to the argument;
• Images or documentation are not used merely as decoration;
• AI-generated, reconstructed, or modified materials are clearly disclosed.

14. Research Integrity

Reviewers should be attentive to possible research integrity issues. Concerns should be communicated to the editor clearly and confidentially.

Possible issues include:

• Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse;
• Duplicate publication;
• Fabricated references;
• Unsupported claims;
• Fabricated interviews, field notes, data, or archival evidence;
• Manipulated images, videos, movement records, or documentation;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Inappropriate or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence tools;
• Misrepresentation of cultural, community, or performance materials.

Reviewers should not make unsupported accusations. Concerns should be based on specific observations or evidence.

15. Structure and Organization

The manuscript should be organized in a clear and logical manner.

Reviewers should consider whether:

• The introduction establishes the topic and argument clearly;
• The literature review or theoretical framework supports the analysis;
• The methodology or analytical approach is placed appropriately;
• The analysis is divided into coherent sections;
• The conclusion follows from the preceding argument;
• Transitions between sections are clear;
• The manuscript avoids repetition, digression, or unclear structure.

16. Quality of Writing

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript is written in clear, precise, and academically appropriate English.

The manuscript should be understandable to an international academic readership. Specialized terminology should be used accurately and explained where necessary.

Reviewers may comment on:

• Clarity of expression;
• Academic tone;
• Sentence structure;
• Terminological consistency;
• Use of non-English terms;
• Excessive jargon or unclear phrasing;
• Need for language editing before publication.

17. Use of Evidence

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript uses evidence appropriately.

Evidence may include:

• Close analysis of movement or performance;
• Interviews;
• Field notes;
• Archival materials;
• Photographs or video documentation;
• Movement notation or diagrams;
• Practice-based documentation;
• Survey or empirical data;
• Historical records;
• Theoretical texts;
• Digital or motion capture data.

The evidence should be relevant, accurately presented, and sufficient to support the manuscript’s claims.

18. References and Citation Quality

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript uses relevant, accurate, and sufficient references.

Reviewers may assess whether:

• Key literature is included;
• Sources are accurately represented;
• References are relevant to the argument;
• Citations are not excessive, ornamental, or unrelated;
• Sources from appropriate cultural, regional, or disciplinary contexts are considered;
• References appear real and complete;
• The manuscript avoids citation manipulation or unnecessary self-citation.

Reviewers may recommend additional references where genuinely relevant, but citation suggestions should be clearly justified.

19. Figures, Tables, and Supplementary Materials

Reviewers should assess whether figures, tables, images, diagrams, videos, or supplementary materials are useful and properly integrated.

Reviewers may consider whether:

• Figures and tables support the manuscript’s argument;
• Visual materials are clearly labeled and captioned;
• Tables and diagrams are readable;
• Supplementary materials are necessary and accessible where appropriate;
• Video, audio, or motion materials are described clearly;
• Permissions, copyright, and consent issues are addressed.

20. Article Type Suitability

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript fits the selected article type.

For example:

• An Original Research Article should present a substantial scholarly contribution;
• A Review Article should synthesize and critically evaluate existing scholarship;
• A Practice-Based Research Article should demonstrate how practice functions as research inquiry;
• A Methodological Note should make a clear contribution to research method or analytical procedure;
• A Performance or Choreographic Analysis should provide critical interpretation, not merely description;
• A Commentary or Field Reflection should present a clear position or reflective argument.

If the manuscript does not fit the selected article type, reviewers may recommend reclassification or restructuring.

21. Contribution to International Readership

The journal serves an international readership. Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript provides enough context for readers who may not be familiar with the specific performance tradition, region, institution, artist, community, archive, or cultural background discussed.

Authors do not need to overexplain all local contexts, but they should provide sufficient information to make the argument accessible and academically meaningful beyond a narrow local audience.

22. Overall Recommendation

Reviewers may be asked to recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no substantive changes.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is suitable in principle but requires limited revisions.
• Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial revision before further consideration.
• Resubmit for Review: The manuscript requires major restructuring, additional evidence, methodological clarification, or significant rewriting before it can be reconsidered.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Final decisions are made by the editor based on the manuscript, reviewer reports, journal standards, and editorial judgment.

23. Summary Evaluation Questions

Reviewers may use the following questions to guide their assessment:

• Does the manuscript fit the journal’s aims and scope?
• Is the research question, argument, or purpose clear?
• Does the manuscript make an original contribution?
• Is the literature engagement appropriate?
• Is the theoretical framework clear and useful?
• Is the methodology or analytical approach appropriate?
• Is the analysis sufficiently developed?
• Does the manuscript move beyond description?
• Are ethical issues addressed where applicable?
• Are copyright, permission, and image-use issues handled responsibly?
• Is the manuscript well structured?
• Is the writing clear and suitable for academic publication?
• Are references accurate, relevant, and sufficient?
• Does the manuscript require minor revision, major revision, or rejection?

24. Confidential Concerns

If reviewers identify serious concerns that should be addressed by the editor, they should include them in the confidential comments section.

Confidential concerns may involve:

• Possible plagiarism;
• Duplicate submission or duplicate publication;
• Fabricated or manipulated materials;
• Ethical approval or consent concerns;
• Copyright or permission problems;
• Conflicts of interest;
• Peer review integrity issues;
• Concerns about AI-generated or misleading content.

25. Constructive Review Standard

Reviewers should write comments that are specific, respectful, and useful. Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should explain the reasons clearly and professionally.

Strong review reports usually identify both strengths and weaknesses. They distinguish major problems from minor issues and provide concrete suggestions where revision is possible.

26. Editorial Note

The purpose of these review criteria is to support rigorous, fair, and constructive peer review. Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure values reviews that combine critical judgment with scholarly responsibility, disciplinary expertise, and respect for authors, participants, performers, communities, and the integrity of the academic record.