Peer-Review Process

The Malaysian Journal of Music employs a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review. The Journal’s editorial process is outlined below.

All submissions are initially screened by the Chief Editor for conformity with the Journal’s scope and basic submission requirements and are checked for plagiarism and the use of AI-generated content. The similarity index for an article should not exceed 20%. Manuscripts that fail to comply with the Journal’s ethical standards are immediately rejected, as are those that do not fall within the Journal’s scope. This stage typically takes around two weeks.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are then handed over to a section editor, who carries out an initial assessment to ensure that the submission follows MJM’s guidelines. If the article meets the minimum criteria, the section editor assigns at least two relevant reviewers and initiates the review process. This stage typically takes around two to three weeks.

Once reviewers have agreed to review the manuscript, they evaluate its content and provide recommendations to the editor on whether the manuscript should be rejected, returned to the author(s) for minor or major revision, or accepted without revision. The review process typically takes approximately six to eight weeks.

Once both reviewers have submitted their review notes, comments, suggestions, and recommendations, the manuscript is either accepted, rejected, or returned to the author(s) for revision.

Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the submitting author, who is given four weeks to revise the manuscript. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, it is reassessed by the section editor to determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate and whether the author(s) have sufficiently addressed the reviewers’ comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed inadequate after the first revision round, the manuscript may be rejected at the discretion of the section editor and Chief Editor. If the revisions are satisfactory, the section editor makes a recommendation, and the Chief Editor makes the final decision on acceptance following approval by the editorial board. This process may extend the overall editorial timeline.

Accepted manuscripts are assigned to in-house copy editors for final language editing to improve readability without altering the substance of the content. The editorial board reviews the final copyedited version before it is approved for publication. The final version of the article, as it will appear on the Journal website, is returned to the submitting author for final approval.

The Journal does not offer fast-track services to expedite the editorial process or publication for a fee other than the APC.