Reviewers Guidelines


Manuscripts submitted to Nordic Research in Music Education are subjected to external peer review. The decision to accept or reject a paper is based on comments from at least two reviewers outside the editorial board. Editorials, book reviews, and similar, are not necessarily peer reviewed.

Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editors will first evaluate whether it fits within the publishing profile of the journal and meets basic standards of quality. If a submission is considered eligible for publication, it is sent for peer-review through the NOASP platform.

After the peer review process, the editorial team will make the final decision regarding acceptance/rejection of the manuscript. The editor-in-chief is accountable for the quality of editorial decisions.


Peer reviewers for Nordic Research in Music Education are asked to provide an in-depth evaluation of the manuscript. The journal maintains high academic standards of publication, and we therefore request a thorough evaluation of the scholarly merit of the manuscript based on the criteria in the review form (Download form, .docx).

Peer reviewers are expected to disclose any conflicting interests, and personal, professional, or financial interests that may be seen as leading the reviewer to gain from reviewing a manuscript. Nordic Research in Music Education aims at contributing to a critical but supportive, inclusive and non-competitive research community, maintaining both academic quality and personal integrity of its members. We encourage the reviewer to assess the manuscript on its own terms, that is, in relation to the stated purpose/aim/problem. The feedback should be constructive, emphasizing positive aspects and suggestions for academic improvement, and avoid argumentative language. If a review is written in an intemperate and disrespectful language, the editors may decide to not disclose it to the author(s). All reviewed manuscripts must be treated confidentially. If a reviewer has evidence of plagiarism by the author(s) or a duplicate submission of the manuscript elsewhere, the reviewer should report it to the Editor-in-chief immediately.

As reviewer, we ask you to submit your review through the review form. In addition, you may make comments directly in the manuscript file, but this is not required.  The peer review process is reciprocally anonymous. Therefore, please make sure that your identity cannot be inferred from your review file(s) before you submit it/them. More information about ensuring a blind review and instructions for anonymizing files can be found here.

We ask that peers complete their reviews within four weeks.


Peer reviewers will have the following possible options for each article:

  • Accept manuscript: accept as is without revision.
  • Revisions required: accept under the condition that minor revisions will be made before publication.
  • Resubmit for review: encourage a resubmission after major revisions as indicated in your review, with no guarantee of publication.
  • Submit elsewhere: the manuscript is better suited for another journal.
  • Decline manuscript: reject the manuscript for reasons indicated in your review.
  • See comments: none of the other categories suits the recommendation.