藝術教育研究期刊
​RESEARCH IN ARTS EDUCATION

Regulations Governing the Academic Review

A. Author Responsibility
Paper submissions should not have been published before. Author of submitted papers should abide by copyright laws and research ethics. The author should bear all consequences if such a complaint is verified.
 

B. Work of Reviewers
The editorial committee is in charge of the review process. Every editorial committee meeting must have a quorum of three members (including the chief editor) and an inspector served by an experienced editor. The inspector observes the entire review process and ensure its quality.

There should be at least three meetings for each published issue.

- The first meeting is to decide on the initial review of the submissions and their external reviewers.

- The second meeting is to decide on the outcome of the initial reviews, entering the second round of reviews.

- The third meeting is to decide on the outcome of the second-round reviews and the final acceptance for publication.

C. External Review Process and Principle
Once a submission is approved after a preliminary review for submission guideline compliance, an external review may follow. There are two types of external review: initial and second round. The editorial committee decides on the list of reviewers. After each editorial committee meeting, the chief editor delivers the submission to the selected expert for an anonymous review. Principles are used to avoid any conflict of interest. Initial reviewers would typically be the same as the second-round reviewers. For the sake of fairness, a fourth external reviewer may be used when the editorial committee cannot come to a decision. Fees
needed for this additional external review would be the responsibility of the publisher. Authors have no obligation to paying this fee for the fourth reviewer. Accepted manuscripts must be accepted by the initial and second-round external reviews and be approved by the editorial committee at three different meetings.
 

D. Review Outcomes
There are four possible outcomes after the initial review:

(i) Accepted: publish as submitted but after final edits;

(ii) Accepted with the condition that the author must revise according to the reviewers’ suggestions. The revision must be reviewed and accepted by the editorial committee, then there will be final edits before publishing;

(iii) Accepted with the condition that the author must revise according to the reviewers’ suggestions and reviewed again by the same reviewers. The revision must be reviewed and accepted by the editorial committee, then there will be final edits before publishing; and

(iv) Not Accepted.

D. Reviewer Comments
The chief editor collects and aggregates all reviewer comments and send them to the author. If the author decides to continue the review process, the author must follow the reviewers’ comments and the chief editor’s direction to revise the paper. The author should also attach a letter that explains how the paper is revised in response to each of the reviewers’ comments,
item by item.

E. Review Principles
Manuscript evaluations are guided by these principles: importance of the research topic, appropriate research method, insights and innovation, consistent style and format, conclusion has academic and practical values, and contributions to the field of arts education.