Peer-Review Process

Malaysian Journal of Music employs double-blind peer review, meaning that the identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Our detailed editorial process is as follows.

1. All submissions are initially screened by the Chief Editor for conformity with our scope and basic submission requirements and checked for plagiarism. The similarity index for this article should not exceed 20%. Manuscripts that fail to abide by our ethical standards are immediately rejected, as are those that do not fit within the journal's scope. This stage should take around 2 weeks.
2. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are then handed over to a handling editor, who carries out an initial review to ensure that they have followed MJM's guidelines. If the article meets our minimum criteria, the handling editor will assign at least two relevant reviewers and initiate the review process. The handling editor should take around 2-3 weeks.
3. Once reviewers have agreed to review the manuscript, they will evaluate the content of the manuscript and provide their recommendation to the editor on whether it should be rejected, returned to the author(s) for minor or major revision, or accepted without revision. The review process is approximately 4-6 weeks.
4. If both reviewers have submitted their review notes, comments, suggestions, and recommendations, the manuscript is either accepted, rejected, or requested for revisions.
5. A manuscript that requires revisions is returned to the submitting author, who will have 4-6 weeks to revise it. Once the revision is submitted, it is reassessed by the handling editor to determine whether the changes are adequate and appropriate, and whether the author(s) have sufficiently responded to the reviewers' comments and suggestions. If the revisions are deemed inadequate, this step is repeated (the manuscript is returned to the submitting author once more for further revision). In addition, if the revision is insufficient and needs to be reviewed again, the Round 2 Review is initiated by assigning other reviewers. This situation certainly requires more time for the editorial process.
6. Finally, the revised manuscript is either accepted or rejected, depending on whether the handling editor considers it improved enough for publication. If authors are unable to make the requested changes, the manuscript is rejected. The Chief Editor then makes the final decision to accept the manuscript based on the recommendation of the handling editors and following approval by the editorial board.
7. An accepted manuscript is assigned to an in-house copyeditor for final editing of its language to improve the article's readability without changing the content's substance. The editorial board reviews the final copyedited version before it is ultimately greenlit for publication.
8. Once greenlit, the manuscript is handed over to the journal's typesetter. The final version of the article, as it will appear in the journal website, is returned to the submitting author for proofreading and final approval.
9. This journal does not offer fast-track services to speed up the editorial process and publication for a fee other than the APC.