Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure relies on the expertise, judgment, and integrity of peer reviewers to maintain the academic quality of the journal. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating manuscripts, supporting editorial decisions, and helping authors improve the clarity, rigor, and contribution of their work.

These guidelines explain the responsibilities of reviewers, the criteria for evaluating manuscripts, the ethical standards of peer review, and the expectations for preparing constructive review reports.

1. Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are invited to provide independent, fair, confidential, and constructive assessments of manuscripts submitted to the journal. Their evaluations help editors determine whether a manuscript is suitable for publication, requires revision, or should be declined.

Reviewers should assess manuscripts according to scholarly quality, originality, relevance, methodological clarity, ethical compliance, and contribution to dance studies, embodied research, choreography, movement analysis, performance studies, artistic research, and related interdisciplinary fields.

2. Accepting or Declining a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they have appropriate expertise, sufficient time, and no conflict of interest that would prevent an objective evaluation.

Reviewers should decline the invitation if:

• The manuscript is outside their area of expertise;
• They cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe;
• They have a conflict of interest with the author, institution, project, performance, archive, community, or subject matter;
• They cannot provide an objective, respectful, and academically grounded assessment;
• They have previously reviewed or been involved with the same manuscript in a way that may compromise impartiality.

If reviewers are unsure whether a conflict of interest exists, they should contact the editor before accepting the review.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, cite, discuss, 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 parties unless the editor has explicitly approved such consultation.

Unpublished materials obtained through peer review must not be used for personal, academic, artistic, financial, or professional advantage.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

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, or other close personal connection with the author;
• Direct academic competition, dispute, or hostility;
• Financial or institutional 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 other intellectual property related to the manuscript;
• Any situation that may reasonably affect impartial judgment.

Where a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation or inform the editor immediately.

5. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and fairly. Reviews should be based on the quality of the manuscript, not on the reviewer’s personal preference, theoretical position, institutional interest, or disagreement with the author’s perspective.

Reviewers should avoid discriminatory, hostile, dismissive, or personal comments. Criticism should be directed at the manuscript, argument, evidence, method, structure, or interpretation, not at the author.

Review reports should be clear, specific, respectful, and useful for both the editor and the author.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their reviews within the timeframe requested by the journal. If a reviewer needs more time, they should inform the editor as early as possible.

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

7. Scope of Review

Reviewers should assess the manuscript according to its article type, subject area, methodology, and scholarly purpose.

The journal publishes a range of article types, including:

• Original Research Articles;
• Review Articles;
• Practice-Based Research Articles;
• Methodological Notes;
• Performance and Choreographic Analyses;
• Commentaries or Field Reflections;
• Book Reviews;
• Performance Reviews;
• Interviews;
• Editorials.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript fulfills the expectations of its selected article type.

8. General Review Criteria

Reviewers should consider the following criteria when evaluating manuscripts:

• Relevance: Does the manuscript fit the aims and scope of the journal?
• Originality: Does the manuscript offer new knowledge, interpretation, method, evidence, or critical perspective?
• Contribution: Does the manuscript contribute meaningfully to dance studies, embodied research, choreography, movement analysis, performance studies, artistic research, or related fields?
• Argument: Is the research question, central claim, or scholarly purpose clearly articulated?
• Literature Engagement: Does the manuscript engage appropriately with relevant scholarship?
• Methodology: Is the research design, analytical approach, or practice-based method clear and appropriate?
• Analysis: Is the analysis coherent, well supported, and critically developed?
• Ethics: Are ethical issues, consent, permissions, cultural sensitivity, and rights concerns addressed where applicable?
• Structure: Is the manuscript well organized and logically developed?
• Writing: Is the language clear, precise, and suitable for academic publication?
• References: Are citations relevant, accurate, sufficient, and properly used?

9. Reviewing Practice-Based Research

Practice-based and practice-led research should be evaluated according to both scholarly and artistic-research standards. Reviewers should not assess such manuscripts only as descriptions of creative work. They should consider whether the submission clearly demonstrates how practice functions as a mode of research inquiry.

Reviewers may consider:

• Whether the relationship between artistic practice and research question is clear;
• Whether the practice process is critically and methodologically framed;
• Whether the manuscript moves beyond description toward analysis, reflection, or theoretical contribution;
• Whether documentation of practice is sufficient and ethically handled;
• Whether collaborators, performers, communities, or artistic contributors are properly acknowledged;
• Whether the manuscript contributes to practice-based research, choreography, performance, embodied knowledge, or artistic methodology.

10. Reviewing Performance and Choreographic Analysis

For manuscripts analyzing performances, choreographic works, festivals, archives, artists, companies, or movement practices, reviewers should assess whether the analysis is specific, critical, and well contextualized.

Reviewers may consider:

• Whether the performance or choreographic work is clearly identified;
• Whether the manuscript provides sufficient historical, cultural, artistic, or theoretical context;
• Whether movement, gesture, rhythm, space, structure, technique, or embodiment is analyzed rather than merely described;
• Whether claims are supported by evidence, documentation, observation, or close analysis;
• Whether rights, permissions, and consent have been addressed for images, videos, or performance documentation;
• Whether the analysis contributes to broader scholarly discussions.

11. Reviewing Interdisciplinary Manuscripts

The journal welcomes interdisciplinary research. Reviewers should evaluate interdisciplinary manuscripts according to the standards of the relevant fields while also considering their contribution to the journal’s focus on dance, embodiment, movement, choreography, performance, and structure.

Interdisciplinary manuscripts may involve anthropology, philosophy, aesthetics, education, digital humanities, media studies, cultural studies, movement science, technology, artificial intelligence, archival studies, or other fields.

Reviewers should consider whether the manuscript integrates its disciplinary perspectives coherently rather than simply placing different fields side by side.

12. Reviewing Research Ethics

Reviewers should pay attention to ethical issues where manuscripts involve human participants, interviews, fieldwork, community research, classroom observation, rehearsal observation, bodily participation, performance documentation, identifiable images, personal data, or culturally sensitive materials.

Reviewers may consider whether the manuscript includes appropriate information about:

• Ethics approval or exemption;
• Informed consent;
• Participant privacy and confidentiality;
• Use of identifiable images or videos;
• Protection of minors or vulnerable individuals;
• Respect for communities, cultural practices, and restricted materials;
• Copyright and permission for visual or performance materials;
• Data availability and restrictions.

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

13. Reviewing Use of Images, Video, and Documentation

Dance and performance research often relies on images, video stills, diagrams, movement maps, notation, archival materials, or performance documentation. Reviewers should assess whether such materials are relevant, properly integrated, clearly captioned, and ethically used.

Reviewers may consider:

• Whether figures and images support the manuscript’s argument;
• Whether captions are accurate and informative;
• Whether performers, choreographers, photographers, archives, or rights holders are properly credited;
• Whether permissions appear necessary and have been addressed;
• Whether visual materials are interpreted responsibly and not used merely decoratively;
• Whether manipulated, generated, or reconstructed materials are clearly disclosed.

14. Reviewing AI Use and Research Integrity

Reviewers should be alert to concerns involving artificial intelligence use, fabricated references, unsupported claims, manipulated images, false data, or unclear research materials.

Reviewers should not assume misconduct without evidence. However, if they notice possible issues, they should inform the editor confidentially.

Possible concerns may include:

• References that appear fabricated or unverifiable;
• Claims unsupported by cited sources;
• Inconsistent or suspicious data presentation;
• Unclear authorship or lack of authorial contribution;
• AI-generated images or diagrams presented as authentic documentation;
• Undisclosed AI-assisted analysis where disclosure appears necessary;
• Language that obscures rather than clarifies the research argument.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

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

Reviewers may not use artificial intelligence tools as a substitute for their own scholarly judgment. Review reports must reflect the reviewer’s own evaluation, expertise, and responsibility.

If reviewers use tools for limited language assistance in preparing their own comments, they must ensure that confidentiality is not compromised and that the final report is accurate, fair, and independently assessed.

16. Structure of the Review Report

Reviewers are encouraged to organize their reports clearly. A useful review report may include:

• A brief summary of the manuscript’s topic, purpose, and contribution;
• An overall assessment of the manuscript’s strengths;
• Major issues that require attention;
• Minor issues or technical corrections;
• Comments on structure, clarity, methodology, evidence, ethics, and references;
• A final recommendation to the editor.

Reviewers should provide enough detail to support their recommendation.

17. Major Comments

Major comments should address substantial issues that affect the manuscript’s academic quality, argument, method, ethics, or contribution.

Major comments may concern:

• Unclear research question or argument;
• Insufficient engagement with relevant literature;
• Weak theoretical framework;
• Inadequate methodology or unclear analytical procedure;
• Insufficient evidence or documentation;
• Overly descriptive analysis;
• Unaddressed ethical or permission issues;
• Major structural problems;
• Conclusions not supported by the analysis;
• Mismatch between article type and manuscript content.

18. Minor Comments

Minor comments may address issues that do not fundamentally affect the manuscript’s contribution but should be corrected before publication.

Minor comments may include:

• Terminology clarification;
• Small factual corrections;
• Typographical or grammatical issues;
• Formatting inconsistencies;
• Reference formatting problems;
• Figure or table numbering issues;
• Caption improvements;
• Additional explanation of specific terms, cases, or sources.

19. Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments to the editor where necessary. These comments should not contain information that should be shared with the author unless the reviewer also includes it in the main review report.

Confidential comments may be used to alert the editor to:

• Possible conflicts of interest;
• Ethical concerns;
• Suspected plagiarism or duplicate publication;
• Concerns about fabricated or manipulated materials;
• Concerns about permissions, consent, or copyright;
• Concerns about peer review integrity;
• Reasons for a recommendation that require editorial context.

20. Reviewer Recommendations

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

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

The final editorial decision rests with the editor. Reviewer recommendations are advisory and are considered together with the manuscript, other reviewer reports, and journal standards.

21. Constructive Tone

Review reports should be constructive even when recommending rejection. Reviewers should explain the reasons for criticism clearly and respectfully.

Reviewers should avoid:

• Personal criticism of the author;
• Dismissive or insulting language;
• Unsubstantiated negative judgments;
• Overly vague comments such as “not good enough” without explanation;
• Demands based only on personal preference;
• Requests for irrelevant citations or unnecessary expansion.

Constructive review strengthens the quality and fairness of scholarly publishing.

22. Citation Suggestions

Reviewers may suggest additional references when they are directly relevant to the manuscript. Citation suggestions should be made to improve the manuscript’s scholarly grounding, not to increase citations to the reviewer’s own work or to a preferred group of scholars.

Reviewers should avoid coercive citation practices. Suggested citations should be clearly justified.

23. Ethical Concerns Identified During Review

If reviewers identify possible ethical or integrity concerns, they should inform the editor. Reviewers should provide specific information and avoid making unsupported accusations.

Concerns may include:

• Plagiarism;
• Duplicate submission or redundant publication;
• Fabricated data, interviews, field notes, or archival evidence;
• Manipulated images, videos, or movement documentation;
• Lack of informed consent;
• Missing ethics approval where required;
• Unauthorized use of copyrighted or restricted materials;
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• Inappropriate use of artificial intelligence tools;
• Misrepresentation of cultural or community materials.

24. Review of Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to review a revised manuscript. In such cases, reviewers should evaluate whether the author has addressed the previous comments adequately.

Reviewers should focus on the revised content and should not introduce entirely new major criticisms unless new issues have emerged from the revision.

Reviewers should assess whether the response letter explains the revisions clearly and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards.

25. Anonymity in Double-Blind Review

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 not attempt to identify the author. If the reviewer becomes aware of the author’s identity, they should inform the editor if this knowledge may affect impartiality.

Reviewers should also avoid revealing their own identity in the review report unless the journal has approved another arrangement.

26. Reviewer Recognition

The journal values the work of peer reviewers. Reviewer contributions may be recognized through certificates, annual acknowledgment, reviewer records, or other appropriate forms, provided that confidentiality and ethical standards are maintained.

Reviewer recognition will not disclose confidential manuscript information or compromise the anonymity of the review process.

27. Relationship with Other Journal Policies

These Reviewer Guidelines should be read together with the journal’s related policies, including:

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

28. Contact

Reviewers with questions about a review invitation, manuscript evaluation, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, deadlines, ethical concerns, or review procedures may contact the Editorial Office through the journal’s official contact page.

29. Editorial Note

Journal of Dance and Embodied Structure appreciates the time, expertise, and care contributed by reviewers. Fair and constructive peer review is essential to the development of responsible scholarship in dance, embodiment, choreography, movement, performance, and interdisciplinary research.