Published articles in peer-reviewed journals are pivotal to the development of a structured and respected knowledge base. Peer review stands as a cornerstone in upholding rigorous standards in academic publishing. In Insieme Arti- Journal for Performing Arts, the process entails single-blind (single anonymized review) peer review, where the reviewers' identities are undisclosed to the authors.

Initially, submissions undergo assessment by the editor to gauge their suitability for the journal. Following this, papers deemed appropriate are typically dispatched to at least two independent expert reviewers for evaluation of their scientific merit. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the editor, whose judgment is conclusive. Editors abstain from involvement in the assessment of papers they have authored, those by family members or colleagues, or those pertaining to products or services in which they have vested interests. Submissions falling under such categories are subjected to the journal's standard procedures, with peer review conducted independently by relevant section editors.

Independent reviewers are tasked with evaluating the manuscript's quality and delivering a recommendation on whether it warrants acceptance, necessitates revisions, or should be rejected. The peer review process is conducted with consideration for the manuscript's scope and the expertise of the reviewers involved. Manuscripts are distributed for evaluation to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), Section Editors, and external reviewers to ensure comprehensive scrutiny keeping in view below .

1. Originality

Manuscripts submitted should demonstrate originality and innovation, presenting novel insights or approaches that contribute significantly to the advancement of the respective field of research. Authors are expected to provide a clear indication of how their work builds upon existing knowledge and addresses gaps in the literature.

2. Significance

Results should be interpreted with precision and depth, highlighting their significance within the context of the research area. Conclusions drawn must be well-supported by the presented results and analysis, offering valuable insights or implications for theory, practice, or further research. The manuscript should articulate the broader implications of the findings and their potential impact on the field

3. Layout and Format

Authors are required to adhere strictly to the journal's Author Guidelines regarding manuscript formatting and structure. This includes proper organization of sections, citation style, and adherence to any specific formatting requirements outlined by the journal. Clear and concise presentation of information is essential to facilitate understanding and readability.

4. Interest to the readers

Manuscripts should align closely with the scope and interests of the journal's readership. The research presented should be relevant and timely, addressing current issues or emerging trends within the field. Authors should strive to engage readers by presenting compelling research questions, methodologies, and findings that capture their interest and stimulate further inquiry.

5. Language level

The language used in the manuscript must be of a high standard, ensuring clarity, coherence, and accuracy of expression. Authors should take care to ensure their writing is comprehensible and free from grammatical errors or ambiguities. Clear communication is essential to facilitate understanding and engagement with the research presented.

6. Overall Merit:

The ultimate criterion for acceptance is the overall merit and contribution of the manuscript to the academic community. This encompasses factors such as the significance of the research question, the rigor of the methodology, the clarity of presentation, and the potential impact of the findings. The manuscript should demonstrate a clear and compelling rationale for publication, offering tangible benefits to the field and advancing scholarly discourse.

Editors and members of the editorial board have the authority to recommend the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript, drawing on their own expertise and knowledge. The Editor-in-Chief(s) may seek additional input from subject matter experts as needed. Peer review is considered complete when at least two independent reviewers submit detailed reports with their comments and recommendations on the manuscript.

The decisions are typically categorized as follows:

Accept as it is: Rarely employed, this decision indicates that the manuscript is accepted in its original form.

Accept with minor revisions: The paper is accepted pending minor modifications or adjustments.

Accept after major revisions: The paper is accepted pending minor modifications or adjustments.

Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is accepted contingent upon significant amendments. Authors are typically asked to address substantial issues such as technical errors, data inadequacies, or the need for a more comprehensive analysis. Sometimes, modifying the research question may also be suggested to ensure the manuscript contributes uniquely to the body of work.

Revise and resubmit: The journal is open to reconsidering the manuscript in a subsequent review cycle, provided authors make significant revisions. This decision allows authors an opportunity to address concerns raised during the initial review.

Reject the manuscript: The manuscript is rejected without the option for resubmission due to major flaws or inadequacies.

Review comments undergo scrutiny by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure appropriateness for scholarly communication. If comments contain sensitive information or are unsuitable for dissemination, they are modified by the Editor-in-Chief. Such comments should be included in the confidential section of the review form, accessible only to editors. This ensures the integrity and professionalism of the peer review process.