Peer-Reviewing

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.

Peer-reviewers are asked to use the JAR Peer Review Form to report on their assessment. The form can be downloaded here.

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. Which aspects of the submission are of interest / relevance and why?

JAR seeks submissions that address important issues or problems in an artistic manner that engages others in the field. When answering this question, please take into account the submission’s subject matter, its methods, outcomes or any other aspect that you deem important.

2. Does the submission live up to its potential?

Please reflect on the potential of the submission and the way it is realised. How might the submission be improved to better match its potential?

3. How does the submission expose practice as research?

JAR is open to submissions from various methodological backgrounds, as long as they expose practice as research. By this we mean that the submission exposes, translates, stages, performs etc. the practice it presents so as to engage with its own meaning, to challenge existing epistemic horizons or to offer new insights.

Please take into account:

  1. Whether or not the submission contains a description of the question, issue or problem that is explored, and if not, if such an omission matters;
  2. Whether or not the submission shows evidence of innovation in content, form or technique in relation to a genre of practice, and if not, if such an omission matters;
  3. Whether or not the submission is contextualized and the context is referenced, which may include social, artistic and/or theoretical issues, and if not, if such an omission matters;
  4. Whether or not the submission provides new (kinds of) knowledge, interpretation, insights or experiences, and if not, if such an omission matters;
  5. Whether or not the submission’s methodology is adequate and thorough, and if not, if such an omission matters.


Ultimately, a submission may successfully expose practice as research despite disappointing conventional academic criteria for the assessment of research. If applicable, please state where the breaching of such criteria is detrimental to the submission.

4. How well do design and navigation support the submission?

Design and navigation should support the proposition. Its reception should make sense and not frustrate (in the case that ‘frustration’ is not deemed an important element of the submission).

JAR does not operate with a minimum or maximum word count because, as a rich-media publication, we could technically accept an exposition without words. But, as a guide, we advise that a reader/viewer should be able to explore the main part of the exposition and understand the research in approximately one hour.

In addition:

  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 (jar@jar-online.net) if you feel you can help us in this important role.

Journal for artistic research

ISSN 2235-0225

Current Issue 5 (2014)

Archive

4 (2013)
3 (2013)
2 (2012)
1 (2011)
0 (2011)