1. Purpose and Scope

World Journal of Music Pedagogy (WJMP) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, constructive, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process.

This policy establishes the responsibilities and ethical standards expected of all individuals who undertake peer review for WJMP. It applies to invited reviewers, members of the Editorial Board acting as reviewers, invited specialist reviewers, and approved co-reviewers.

The policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), particularly the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers, and should be read together with the journal's Peer Review Process, Publication Ethics, Editorial Board Policy, Conflict of Interest Policy, and Artificial Intelligence Policy.

2. Fundamental Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the scholarly quality and integrity of WJMP.

A reviewer is expected to:

1. accept review assignments only when able to provide an informed and independent assessment;
2. evaluate manuscripts objectively, fairly, and respectfully;
3. maintain strict confidentiality throughout and after the review process;
4. disclose relevant conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment;
5. provide constructive and evidence-based comments;
6. complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
7. identify significant scholarly, methodological, ethical, or reporting concerns;
8. avoid using privileged information obtained through peer review for personal or professional advantage;
9. avoid manipulating citations or the editorial process;
10. comply with the journal's policy on artificial intelligence;
11. respect the anonymity requirements of the journal's peer-review model; and
12. immediately inform the editor of circumstances that may compromise the integrity of the review.

The reviewer acts as an independent scholarly adviser to the editor. The reviewer does not make the final publication decision.

3. Expertise and Acceptance of Review Assignments

A reviewer should accept an invitation only when the manuscript falls sufficiently within their area of scholarly, methodological, professional, or disciplinary expertise.

A reviewer who believes that they lack sufficient expertise to evaluate important aspects of the manuscript should inform the editor.

A reviewer may indicate that they are able to assess only particular aspects of a multidisciplinary manuscript. Such limitations should be clearly communicated to the editor.

Reviewers should decline an invitation when:

• the manuscript is substantially outside their area of expertise;
• they cannot provide a sufficiently informed assessment;
• they cannot complete the review within the requested timeframe;
• they have a relevant conflict of interest; or
• another circumstance could reasonably compromise their independence or impartiality.

Declining a review invitation for legitimate reasons does not negatively affect future invitations from WJMP.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• recent or ongoing collaboration with an author;
• employment at the same institution or closely related organizational unit;
• supervisory, student, or mentoring relationships;
• close personal or family relationships;
• significant academic rivalry or dispute;
• financial interests related to the research;
• involvement in competing research;
• prior involvement in the manuscript or research project;
• direct involvement in funding, evaluating, or supervising the research; or
• other professional or personal relationships that may reasonably affect impartiality.

The existence of a relationship does not automatically constitute a disqualifying conflict in every case. Reviewers should disclose the relevant circumstances to the editor, who will determine whether the review assignment remains appropriate.

A reviewer must not deliberately conceal a material conflict of interest.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, photograph, copy, store in unauthorized systems, or otherwise share manuscript materials with individuals who have not been authorized by WJMP.

Confidential materials include:

• manuscript text;
• titles and abstracts of unpublished submissions;
• figures and tables;
• research data;
• musical notation and scores;
• photographs and visual materials;
• audio or audiovisual materials;
• supplementary files;
• author information;
• editorial correspondence;
• review invitations;
• other reviewers' comments where accessible; and
• editorial decisions.

Reviewers must not use unpublished ideas, methods, theoretical frameworks, findings, data, musical materials, or other information obtained through peer review for their own research, teaching, publication, commercial activity, or personal benefit without appropriate authorization.

The obligation of confidentiality continues after the review has been submitted and after the editorial process has concluded.

6. Reviewer Anonymity

WJMP uses a double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewers should therefore take reasonable steps to protect their identity during the review process.

Reviewer reports should not contain unnecessary information that could reveal the reviewer's identity.

Reviewers must not attempt to discover the identity of anonymous authors through digital searches, metadata investigation, textual clues, artificial intelligence tools, or other means when author identities are intentionally concealed by the journal.

If a reviewer inadvertently becomes aware of an author's identity, the reviewer should consider whether this creates a conflict of interest and notify the editor where appropriate.

7. No Direct Contact with Authors

Reviewers must not contact authors directly concerning a manuscript under review unless explicitly authorized by the editor.

Questions, requests for clarification, recommendations, or concerns relating to the manuscript should be communicated through the WJMP editorial system or the responsible editor.

Reviewers should not attempt to establish private discussions, collaborations, agreements, or exchanges with authors based on information obtained through a confidential review assignment.

8. Delegation and Co-Reviewing

A reviewer invitation is made to the individual invited by the journal and must not be transferred to another person without editorial permission.

Reviewers must not ask students, colleagues, research assistants, postdoctoral researchers, or other individuals to review all or part of a manuscript without prior approval from the responsible editor.

Where co-reviewing is educationally or academically appropriate, the reviewer must request permission from the editor before involving another person.

Approved co-reviewers must:

• be identified to the editor;
• agree to the journal's confidentiality requirements;
• disclose relevant conflicts of interest;
• comply with this Reviewer Policy; and
• receive appropriate recognition for their contribution where applicable.

The invited reviewer remains responsible for ensuring the integrity of the submitted review.

9. Objectivity, Fairness, and Professional Conduct

Reviews must focus on the scholarly content of the manuscript.

Evaluation should be based on relevant considerations such as:

• originality and significance;
• theoretical or conceptual contribution;
• methodological rigor;
• appropriateness of data and analysis;
• validity of interpretation;
• engagement with relevant literature;
• transparency and reproducibility where applicable;
• ethical integrity;
• clarity and coherence of presentation; and
• relevance to the scope of WJMP.

Reviewers must not allow their assessment to be influenced by an author's nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, geographical location, career stage, academic status, theoretical orientation, or other characteristics unrelated to the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

Academic disagreement is legitimate, but criticism must address arguments, evidence, methods, interpretation, or presentation rather than the individual author.

10. Constructive and Respectful Review Reports

Reviewer reports should help both editors and authors evaluate and, where appropriate, improve the manuscript.

Review comments should therefore be:

• specific;
• clear;
• constructive;
• evidence-based;
• professionally expressed;
• relevant to the manuscript; and
• proportionate to the significance of the issue identified.

Reviewers should distinguish major concerns from minor revisions whenever practical.

Reviewers should explain the scholarly basis for major criticisms rather than merely stating that a manuscript is weak, unacceptable, or incorrect.

Personal attacks, ridicule, hostility, discriminatory statements, insulting language, or deliberately humiliating comments are unacceptable.

WJMP reserves the right to edit, withhold, or disregard reviewer comments that violate professional or ethical standards.

11. Recommendations to the Editor

The confidential recommendation submitted to the editor should be consistent with the substantive issues identified in the reviewer report.

Where the journal's review system provides decision categories, reviewers may recommend outcomes such as:

• accept;
• minor revision;
• major revision; or
• reject,

according to the options available in the editorial system.

A recommendation should not substitute for a reasoned evaluation.

The reviewer provides expert advice, while the final editorial decision belongs to the designated editor.

Reviewers should not communicate an acceptance or rejection decision directly to the author.

12. Evaluation of Research Methods and Evidence

Reviewers should assess methodological and analytical aspects within the limits of their expertise.

Where relevant, reviewers should consider whether:

• the research design is appropriate to the research questions;
• participant or data selection is adequately explained;
• analytical procedures are appropriate;
• interpretations are supported by evidence;
• limitations are acknowledged;
• statistical analyses are appropriate and sufficiently reported;
• qualitative interpretations are transparent and adequately grounded;
• mixed-method integration is coherent where applicable; and
• conclusions do not substantially exceed the evidence presented.

Reviewers should not demand the use of a preferred methodology merely because it differs from their own scholarly approach.

Methodological criticism should be based on the requirements of the research question, design, data, and claims made in the manuscript.

13. Ethical Issues and Research Integrity

Reviewers should alert the editor confidentially when they identify reasonable concerns regarding research or publication integrity.

Such concerns may include suspected:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• data fabrication or falsification;
• inappropriate image manipulation;
• manipulated audio or audiovisual materials;
• inappropriate authorship;
• inadequate ethical approval;
• inadequate informed consent;
• misuse of culturally sensitive or Indigenous knowledge;
• copyright infringement;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• fabricated references;
• citation manipulation;
• peer-review manipulation;
• inappropriate use of artificial intelligence; or
• other forms of research or publication misconduct.

Reviewers should provide the editor with specific reasons or evidence supporting the concern whenever possible.

Reviewers must not directly accuse authors of misconduct in comments intended for the authors unless specifically instructed by the editor.

The investigation and determination of potential misconduct are editorial responsibilities and should follow appropriate publication-ethics procedures.

14. Similarity with Other Publications

If a reviewer becomes aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and another published, accepted, or submitted work, the reviewer should confidentially inform the editor.

Where possible, the reviewer should identify the relevant source or explain the basis of the concern.

Reviewers should not conduct intrusive investigations into authors beyond what is reasonably necessary for scholarly evaluation.

A similarity concern should be reported to the editor rather than presented as a definitive allegation of misconduct.

15. Citation Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend additional references when they are genuinely relevant and materially improve the manuscript.

Citation recommendations must have a legitimate scholarly justification.

Reviewers must not:

• require citation of their own publications solely to increase their citations;
• require citation of publications by colleagues or associates for personal advantage;
• request unnecessary citations to a particular journal;
• propose citations unrelated to the manuscript's arguments or evidence;
• use review authority to manipulate citation metrics; or
• make acceptance conditional on inappropriate citation requests.

Where recommending references, reviewers should explain their relevance whenever it is not self-evident.

Editors may remove, disregard, or investigate citation recommendations that appear coercive, excessive, irrelevant, or manipulative.

16. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete reviews within the timeframe agreed with the journal.

If circumstances prevent timely completion, the reviewer should inform the editor as soon as reasonably possible.

The reviewer may:

• request a reasonable extension; or
• withdraw from the assignment if unable to complete it appropriately.

A rushed or superficial review should not be submitted merely to meet a deadline.

Timeliness should be balanced with the need for an adequate scholarly evaluation.

17. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

WJMP recognizes that artificial intelligence technologies are increasingly used in scholarly communication. However, peer review involves confidential unpublished material and requires accountable human scholarly judgment.

The use of AI by reviewers must therefore comply with the principles of confidentiality, intellectual property protection, scholarly integrity, transparency, and human accountability.

17.1 Human Responsibility

Peer review must be performed by the appointed human reviewer.

Artificial intelligence must not replace the reviewer's own reading, reasoning, expertise, or scholarly judgment.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for every assessment, criticism, recommendation, citation, and statement submitted in their review report.

A reviewer must not submit an AI-generated review as their own independent scholarly evaluation.

17.2 Confidential Manuscripts and Generative AI

Reviewers must not upload, paste, enter, transmit, or otherwise provide any confidential manuscript material to publicly accessible or unauthorized generative AI systems.

This includes complete or partial:

• manuscript text;
• abstracts;
• tables;
• figures;
• datasets;
• photographs;
• musical scores;
• musical notation;
• audio or audiovisual materials;
• supplementary files;
• unpublished findings;
• author information;
• editorial correspondence; and
• other confidential manuscript-derived information.

This restriction applies to general-purpose AI platforms and other external systems where confidentiality, data retention, training use, security, or intellectual property protections have not been formally approved by WJMP.

17.3 AI Must Not Perform the Scholarly Review

Reviewers must not use a general-purpose generative AI system to:

• evaluate the novelty of a confidential manuscript;
• judge its scholarly contribution;
• assess methodological validity;
• assess the reliability of findings;
• evaluate arguments or interpretations;
• identify strengths and weaknesses in place of the reviewer;
• generate substantive peer-review comments;
• formulate a publication recommendation;
• summarize the manuscript as a substitute for reading it; or
• produce a complete peer-review report.

The intellectual evaluation of a manuscript must remain the responsibility of the appointed reviewer.

17.4 Limited AI-Assisted Uses

AI-assisted or automated tools may be used only for limited purposes when:

1. their use is permitted by WJMP;
2. confidentiality is fully protected;
3. no confidential manuscript material is transmitted to an unauthorized external system;
4. the tool does not replace scholarly judgment; and
5. the reviewer verifies all resulting output.

Where an WJMP-approved system is available for a defined technical purpose, reviewers must use it only within its authorized function.

17.5 Language Assistance

A reviewer who requires language assistance should not expose confidential manuscript content or substantive review material to an unauthorized AI service.

AI-assisted language polishing of reviewer-authored text may be used only where the tool has appropriate confidentiality safeguards or has been approved for this purpose by the journal.

Language assistance must not alter the scholarly substance of the review or generate criticisms that the reviewer has not independently formulated and verified.

17.6 AI Detection

Reviewers should exercise caution when using AI-detection tools.

An AI-detection score or automated indicator does not constitute definitive evidence that a manuscript was generated or improperly modified using artificial intelligence.

If a reviewer suspects inappropriate AI use, the concern should be reported confidentially to the editor together with the reasons for the concern.

The reviewer should not accuse the author directly or recommend rejection solely on the basis of an automated AI-detection score.

17.7 Accountability for AI-Assisted Activity

Reviewers remain responsible for any AI-assisted activity undertaken in connection with a review assignment.

Violation of confidentiality through an AI system may constitute a breach of reviewer responsibilities regardless of whether the disclosure was intentional.

Where uncertainty exists regarding whether a particular AI tool may be used, the reviewer should consult the editorial office before using the tool in connection with a confidential manuscript.

18. Reviewers Must Not Use Manuscript Information for Competitive Advantage

Reviewers may receive access to novel ideas, research questions, methodologies, findings, datasets, artistic materials, performances, compositions, technologies, or other intellectual contributions before publication.

Such privileged access must never be used to:

• accelerate the reviewer's competing research;
• appropriate ideas or methodologies;
• reproduce unpublished findings;
• delay publication for competitive advantage;
• inform grant applications without authorization;
• gain commercial benefit; or
• provide privileged information to another person.

Where a reviewer is conducting closely competing research that may affect impartiality, the reviewer should disclose this to the editor before accepting the assignment.

19. Changes in Circumstances During Review

A reviewer who becomes aware of a conflict of interest, authorship identity, competitive relationship, confidentiality problem, or other significant concern after accepting the assignment should immediately notify the editor.

The editor will determine whether the reviewer should:

• continue the review;
• provide a review limited to particular aspects;
• withdraw; or
• take another appropriate action.

Reviewers should not independently determine that a newly identified conflict is irrelevant without informing the editor when it could reasonably affect impartiality.

20. Responsibilities After Submitting the Review

Confidentiality obligations continue after a reviewer submits a report.

Reviewers must not publicly disclose that they reviewed a particular unpublished manuscript unless disclosure is authorized under the journal's policies.

Reviewers must not share their review report publicly while the manuscript remains confidential unless specifically authorized.

If a reviewer later identifies a significant error in their submitted report, they should promptly inform the editor.

If the manuscript is subsequently published, reviewers remain bound by confidentiality concerning information obtained during the unpublished review process that is not part of the public scholarly record.

21. Reviewer Misconduct and Breaches of Policy

WJMP may investigate credible concerns regarding reviewer conduct.

Potential reviewer misconduct may include:

• breach of manuscript confidentiality;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• unauthorized delegation of peer review;
• appropriation of unpublished ideas or data;
• deliberate delay for competitive advantage;
• abusive or discriminatory comments;
• falsification of reviewer identity;
• manipulation of peer review;
• coercive citation practices;
• inappropriate communication with authors;
• use of unauthorized artificial intelligence systems;
• submission of substantially AI-generated reviews contrary to journal policy; or
• other behavior that compromises the integrity of peer review.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the breach, WJMP may:

• disregard the reviewer report;
• request clarification or correction;
• discontinue the review assignment;
• remove the reviewer from the journal's reviewer database;
• suspend future invitations;
• notify appropriate editorial or institutional authorities where warranted; or
• take other proportionate action consistent with recognized publication-ethics procedures.

Any investigation should be conducted fairly and should avoid conclusions based solely on unverified allegations.

22. Recognition and Reviewer Contributions

WJMP values peer review as an essential scholarly contribution.

Where appropriate and consistent with confidentiality requirements, the journal may support mechanisms for acknowledging reviewer service.

Recognition of reviewer activity must not reveal confidential manuscript information or compromise the journal's double-blind peer-review process.

Reviewers may indicate general service to WJMP in professional records where permitted, but should not identify confidential manuscripts, authors, or unpublished editorial outcomes.

23. Reference Framework

This policy is informed by principles and guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including guidance concerning:

• Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers;
• accepting peer-review assignments;
• reviewer confidentiality;
• conflicts of interest;
• professional and constructive peer review;
• direct contact between reviewers and authors;
• reviewer delegation and co-reviewing;
• citation manipulation;
• manipulation of the peer-review process;
• suspected research and publication misconduct;
• artificial intelligence in peer review; and
• responsible editorial responses to breaches of reviewer conduct.

Where a situation is not explicitly addressed by WJMP policy, the journal may consult relevant COPE guidance and other recognized international standards of publication ethics.