The JAR review process

All expositions in JAR are peer reviewed (except those in our inaugural issue 0). The steps of this process after the reception of a submission are:

1. Assessment by the Editorial Board

The Editorial Board assesses if the submission meets the basic requirements to be passed to review (see submissions) and may suggest some changes before doing so.

2. Invitation of Reviewers

The Editorial Board invites at least three reviewers for the submission, approaching experts from disciplinary fields of the submission, including artistic, scientific and scholarly disciplines. The author(s) may propose one of the three reviewers. JAR expects the reviewers to engage critically and supportively with the field of artistic research.

JAR employs a 'single blind' review process. The reviewers are anonymous until publication; while the names of the authors are announced. In the art field, a 'double blind' review process can be seen as particularly inappropriate, as the research often carries the ‘signature’ of those who conducted it.

3. Decision on the basis of reviews

Having received the reviews, the Editorial Board decides whether the submission is:

  1. rejected
  2. rejected with the opportunity to re-submit after substantial changes (In this case, the author(s) will have the opportunity to re-submit the exposition, taking into account the comments of the reviewers and the editorial board).
  3. accepted with minor changes
  4. accepted in current state

If a submission is accepted, the reviewers are asked to compile a final set of comments based on the re-worked submission. These comments are then published alongside the submission as ‘JAR Reviewer Comments’ and linked to from the JAR table of contents.

We continue to debate what peer review entails in the context of JAR. We believe that research can be assessed, while at the same time we recognize that artistic research work is, by its nature, an open undertaking, resisting overly rigid regulations. JAR itself is work-in-progress. The emerging community of artistic researchers will learn and define through practice what it means to expose artistic research.

If the submission is accepted, it will be published in one of the next issues of JAR.

Points of attention for reviewing JAR submissions

Note: This is work in progress. Reviewing criteria are suggestions that allow the probing of an exposition in particular ways without being prescriptive.

1. Is the exposition of artistic and/or intellectual interest?

Although difficult to assess, expositions are sought that endeavour to address important artistic issues or intellectual problems in a particular artistic manner that engage others in the field.

2. Does the submission expose artistic practice as research?

In JAR, research is exposed, translated, transformed, performed, curated etc. as an artistic practice. The claim to be research implies a relationship in one way or another to academic and artistic criteria for the conduct of research. The submission need not comply with all (or even one) of the points listed here. But one might question whether it does, and if not, what the artistic, aesthetic or intellectual rationale is and if such an omission matters or leads to an advantage:

  1. A description or exposition of the question, issue or problem the research is exploring
  2. Innovation in content, form or technique in relation to an artistic practice
  3. Contextualisation, which may include social, artistic and/or theoretical issues that the work responds to, a discussion of a range of positions taken by other artists or researchers to whom this work contributes a particular perspective, or some documentation of work by the author that led to the present submission
  4. New knowledge, interpretation, insights or experiences, and what (kind of) new knowledge, interpretation, insights or experiences these comprise
  5. The adequacy of the methods used and the thoroughness of research, analysis and/or experiment.

3. Does the exposition design and navigation support the artistic endeavour?

The design should reflect and support the artistic endeavour, while remaining understandable. The presentation should make sense in an artistic way (even if this sense might be 'confusion' at times). That might include:

  1. A correct or feasible use of referencing is used in the submission (e.g. the MHRA author-date citation style)
  2. In case of the use of text: the readability of the submission (including the use of written English language, if applicable)
  3. The length of the submission and the navigation

Reviewing for JAR

JAR has a growing database of reviewers who generously agree to contribute their time and points of view aiding us in our aim to publish and debate artistic research. The journal welcomes the interest of possible reviewers from all disciplines, whether operating inside or outside the academic context. Contact us ( if you feel you can help us in this important role.

Journal for artistis research

ISSN 2235-0225

Current Issue 4 (2013)


3 (2013)
2 (2012)
1 (2011)
0 (2011)