Our Peer Review Process

Why We Use a Non-Anonymous, Collaborative Peer Review Process: 

Following the model of similar open-access research venues,For example, see https://smt-pod.org/ and Frontiers we hope that this process creates a sense of community and open dialogue about current issues in music and music research while also circumventing traumas that research shows are related to the traditional anonymous peer review process. By making research more accessible, our goal is to center voices and ideas that may otherwise be left out of the conversation. We recognize that the traditional anonymous peer review process remains the established standard for scholarly publication in academia, but we believe our journal offers a productive alternative to this method that demonstrates the benefits of collaboration, inclusivity, and community-building that are at the forefront of our approach.

Our Non-Anonymous, Collaborative Peer Review Process (Step-by-step):

  1. Our board of editors reads submissions and makes selections based on general suitability for the site and pertinence to the issue’s theme 
  2. Selected pieces are shared with 2-3 peer reviewers whose own research is related to or intersects with the submission at hand
    1. Peer reviewers are typically graduate students or junior faculty with a connection to the University of Michigan or Currents in Music Research, such that we can create a scholarly community of young scholars 
    2. One lead peer reviewer, assigned at the beginning of the process, is in charge of communication between the author, the other peer reviewers, and the editorial board, informing the author/reviewers of deadlines and ensuring the proper order of processes 
  3. Peer reviewers offer suggestions to the author via a shared google document
    1. If the author has any questions, they can respond to comments in the google document, or for larger concerns, the lead peer reviewer may set up a joint meeting 
  4. Once peer reviewers are done offering suggestions, the author will create a final draft, taking as many comments/edits as they see fit 
  5. The final draft is reviewed by the editorial board for final approval 
  6. Final copyediting round is performed by editorial board members 
  7. Pieces are published on the website 

Selected Biography of Research on Open Peer Review: