top of page

PEER REVIEW PROCESS

It is important to note that peer review takes many forms, and each has its own benefits and drawbacks. Peer review models vary between journals. Each publisher has their own process/guidelines, and modifies them from time to time. Despite being relatively young and small, we feel that we are creating a space for dynamism within festival culture. As a means of providing insight and addressing festival culture, we aim to explore, expand and articulate current approaches within the field. Our inter-, multi-, trans-, and cross-disciplinary approaches bring to light both well-known and little-known perspectives.

Holding Notes

Process Overview

Your article will undergo an initial assessment by the journal's editor when it is received.

It will be checked to see if it's generally appropriate for the journal. Throughout our entire process we aim to be empathetic and respectful while being objective and supportive. Our reviewers are also considerate and respectful in their word choice and approach. Furthermore, reviews help articles that need revision to progress further.

 

The peer review process generally includes the following steps:

​

  • The author submits their article.

 

  • As a first step, editors decide if the article fits the journal's scope, if it is relevant to the journal, and whether to:

    • Reject the author's article

    • Accept and send for peer review or consider for more revisions 

​​

  • The next step is peer review. In addition to providing feedback on how to improve the article, the reviewers provide recommendations for revisions as clearly as possible.

​​

  • The edited article is then returned to the author.

​​

  • As soon as the edits are made, the document is resubmitted to the editor. At this point the article is reviewed by the reviewer to make sure it is ready for publication. In this way, we can maintain or improve the quality of our work. In the review process, the reviewer decides whether more revisions are necessary or if the article should be rejected. At this stage a variety of factors will be considered by the editors when making final decisions about an article, including:

  1. Acceptance

    Acceptance of the paper is conditional upon minor revisions and review.

  2. Minor Revisions

    Authors are requested to address specific concerns before resubmitting.

  3. Major Revisions

    Requires significant revisions and peer review.

  4. Rejection

    Articles are not accepted for publication for a variety of reasons.

    It could be because it does not inform and address festival culture, a lack of a theoretical framework, unethical or libellous, poorly contextualised, or plagiarism might be a concern, lack of originality, a lack of methodological rigour, or it does not fit the scope of the journal.

 

​Peer reviewing is very significant to the process. Editors rely on peer reviewers' expert knowledge in the field to evaluate each article for its quality, originality, and potential contribution.

​​​​

Note: Until all reviews and revisions are complete, JFCIA cannot commit to publishing an article.​​

​

Unsuccessful Articles

We aim to provide as much information about successful and unsuccessful articles. Some successful articles may have minor revisions whilst others may have major revisions before your article is accepted for publication.

​

Before a paper is ready for publication, it is common for editors and reviewers to suggest ways to improve it. So far, most authors have stated that the comments have been helpful. We are very pleased about that as it is a step towards improving the quality of articles in our journal.

 

Note: Before articles are sent to peer reviewers, they are checked and anonymised.

​

Guest Editing​

We welcome guest editors. Guest editors are invited to collaborate with us on a call for articles. As part of our orientation process, we inform them about our publishing process, which includes peer reviews. Peer reviews are crucial to ensuring a smooth process from reviewing to publishing. Upon selecting an article, they will complete a JFCIA peer review form, which informs the journal editors if the article is worthy of publication and should be peer reviewed.

​

Due to the lengthy nature of the review process and the need for articles to fit the scope of the journal, it is imperative that guest editors rely on our peer reviewers for their expertise in festival-related articles. We cannot accept articles from guest editors who use other reviewers, regardless of whether the article has been accepted by reviewers outside JFCIA. Our in-house process must be followed for all articles. If this is not done, the outcome is disappointing for the author and that is not what we at JFCIA want for authors.

​

As part of the review process, our reviewers examine an article to determine its merit. When the guest editor fails to follow the process, the entire process is prolonged - from allocating peer reviewers to reassessing the article's appropriateness etc.

 

When the process is followed from the beginning, it works best. Whenever it is not followed from the start, we have other mechanisms in place, such as reviews, to ensure the article is appropriate for our journal. We conduct double-blind peer-reviews, however, only in situations where the guest editor does not adhere to our system, and we have to review an article quickly is another option considered. This option is particularly useful in the event that a second reviewer is unavailable at a time of need. We then proceed with a single blind review.

​

Peer Reviewers

​It is important to note that peer reviewers are academics and practitioners in the field. They have full-time jobs, busy schedules, and may also peer review other publications. It is possible that reviewers can't review articles right away. Consequently, we wait for them to review articles, which may take some time. 

Sparklers
bottom of page