Editorial publication guide

1. Publication Guidelines for Peer-Reviewed Articles

This section outlines the procedures authors must follow to comply with the journal’s publication requirements and to submit research articles for peer review under the double-anonymous review model.

1.1. Submission and Initial Screening

The editorial process begins with the submission of the manuscript through the journal’s Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. At this stage, the corresponding author uploads the manuscript together with all required supplementary materials, including images, photographs, the Intellectual Property Declaration, and the Open Science Compliance Form: https://revistas.unm.edu.pe/index.php/Antec/about/submissions. To avoid delays during the review process, all required information and documentation must be complete and accurately submitted.
The Editorial Team then conducts an initial administrative and technical screening to verify that the manuscript complies with the journal’s basic editorial requirements, including formatting, manuscript structure, citation style, and the submission of all mandatory documentation. If omissions or formatting deficiencies are identified, authors will be asked to address these issues before the manuscript proceeds to the next stage of evaluation.
The manuscript is subsequently screened for textual similarity using Turnitin, which compares the submission against a wide range of published and unpublished sources. This screening is intended to identify textual overlap, inaccurate citation practices, potential collusion, inappropriate paraphrasing, and other forms of academic misconduct, including the inappropriate use of artificial intelligence (AI) assisted writing. Turnitin also provides similarity reports and risk indicators that support the editorial assessment. ANTEC accepts manuscripts with a similarity index of up to 10%, excluding the reference list and properly cited quotations. If the similarity index exceeds this threshold, the corresponding report will be returned to the authors so that the necessary revisions can be made before resubmission. This procedure may be repeated until the manuscript satisfies the journal's similarity requirements.
Once the similarity screening has been successfully completed, the manuscript undergoes a preliminary editorial assessment by the Editorial Team. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for its relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scholarly contribution, and consistency with the journal's editorial policy. Manuscripts that meet these criteria will receive the decision "Accepted for Editorial Processing". Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements will be declined, and the submission will be closed.

1.2. Academic Peer Review

Once a manuscript has successfully passed the preliminary editorial assessment, the Editorial Team will notify the corresponding author that it is proceeding to the peer-review stage. If the preliminary assessment identifies minor issues requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version before external review begins.
The Editorial Team will then appoint expert reviewers with recognized expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewer selection is intended to ensure an objective, rigorous, and academically sound evaluation. Depending on the journal's editorial policy, manuscripts may be reviewed under a double-anonymous, single-anonymous, or open peer-review model.
During peer review, reviewers assess the manuscript's methodological rigor, coherence of argumentation, adequacy and currency of the literature reviewed, significance of the findings, and overall scholarly contribution. They provide comments, recommendations, and suggestions intended to improve the manuscript.
The Editorial Team subsequently examines and consolidates the reviewers' reports by considering areas of agreement, differences of opinion, and substantive comments in order to reach a well-supported editorial decision.
The final editorial decision is based on the outcome of the peer-review process. Manuscripts may be "Accepted", "Accepted subject to revisions", or "Rejected". Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage. Where revisions are required, authors must address all reviewer and editorial comments and submit a revised version for further consideration. If the manuscript is rejected, the corresponding author will be formally notified, and the editorial process will conclude.

1.3. Editorial Production

Manuscripts accepted for publication proceed to the editorial production stage. The first step is copyediting, during which spelling, grammar, syntax, and overall clarity are reviewed. The purpose of this stage is to improve the linguistic quality of the manuscript without altering its scholarly content.
The manuscript then undergoes editorial editing and standardization. During this phase, it is brought into full compliance with the journal's editorial requirements, including manuscript structure, citations, references, tables, figures, and all applicable publication guidelines.
The next step involves DOI registration and metadata preparation. A permanent Digital Object Identifier (DOI) is assigned to the article, and the metadata required for discovery, indexing, and retrieval in scholarly databases and information systems are completed.
The manuscript then proceeds to the layout and typesetting stage. At this point, the final publication version is designed in accordance with the journal's visual identity and editorial style, ensuring consistency in typography, formatting, graphic elements, and the overall professional presentation of the article.
Finally, the Editorial Team conducts a comprehensive review of the typeset proofs. Once all editorial requirements have been met, the final version is approved for publication.

1.4. Publication and Dissemination

Following final approval, the completed issue is authorized for publication. This decision confirms that both the scholarly content and the editorial presentation are ready for official release.
The article is then published online through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, where it becomes openly accessible to readers, researchers, and academic institutions in accordance with the journal's access policy.
Following online publication, dissemination activities are undertaken, including the registration of the article in academic databases, institutional repositories, journal directories, scholarly networks, and other initiatives designed to enhance the journal's visibility and institutional impact.
In addition, the journal publishes a print edition in accordance with its publication frequency and editorial model. This printed version complements digital dissemination and further strengthens the journal's institutional presence.
Upon completion of these stages, the editorial process concludes. The article becomes part of the journal's permanent scholarly record and is available for consultation, citation, and academic use.

2. Peer-Review Process and Editorial Decisions

The purpose of the peer-review and editorial decision-making process is to ensure the scholarly quality, scientific rigor, and ethical integrity of all submitted manuscripts. The following sections describe the stages and procedures of the peer-review system adopted by ANTEC: Revista Peruana de Investigación Musical.

2.1. Peer-Review System

The Universidad Nacional de Música establishes external peer review as a standard procedure for its academic publications, in accordance with Section 2.3.5 of the Guide for the Implementation of Scientific Academic Activities of the National Code of Scientific Integrity issued by CONCYTEC. Each manuscript is evaluated by a minimum of two specialists in the relevant field, selected based on their academic and professional expertise. Reviewers may be proposed by the Editorial Team or by external specialists and form part of an external review committee composed of national and international researchers.

At the beginning of the editorial process, all manuscripts undergo an editorial screening for relevance and ethical compliance conducted by the Editorial Team, which consists of the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, and Editorial Analyst. During this stage, the team verifies compliance with the journal’s style guidelines, manuscript structure, and submission requirements; evaluates writing quality and formal presentation; assesses alignment with the journal’s editorial scope; and ensures compliance with regulations concerning copyright, conflicts of interest, and ethical principles. If the manuscript receives a favorable preliminary assessment, it proceeds to external scientific evaluation through peer review under one of the following models: double-anonymous review, single-anonymous review, or open peer review. The latter two models may be applied in the case of preprints.

During the peer-review stage, a minimum of two reviewers per manuscript evaluate the methodological quality, argumentative coherence, currency of the literature review, relevance of the results and findings presented, and the scholarly contribution of the work. Reviewers use the journal’s Reviewer Evaluation Form to record their comments, recommendations, and suggestions, which serve as the basis for the final editorial decision.

The manuscript evaluation process considers, at a minimum, the following criteria:

Relevance of the topic to the journal’s editorial scope.
Originality, novelty, and significance of the content.
Compliance with formal submission requirements.
Acceptance of the journal’s publication conditions.
Absence of conflicts of interest and compliance with ethical standards and copyright regulations.

For further information on completing the Reviewer Evaluation Form, please consult the Reviewer Guidelines provided below.

2.2. Evaluation Outcomes

Upon completion of the peer-review process, the Editorial Team will communicate the evaluation outcome to the authors through the Reviewer Evaluation Form, which will include the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. This communication will be sent to the email address provided during manuscript submission.

Reviewers may issue one of the following recommendations:

Publishable: The manuscript is accepted without substantial modifications or with minor revisions that do not require a new review round.
Publishable with revisions: Publication is conditional upon the incorporation of the requested changes. Authors will have one week to submit the revised manuscript, which must include tracked changes in Microsoft Word format. Failure to meet this deadline will result in the manuscript being archived as not publishable.
Requires reevaluation: The manuscript requires substantial restructuring. Authors may submit a revised version, which will undergo a new evaluation process without any guarantee of acceptance. The maximum period for resubmission is three months; after this period, the manuscript will be archived as not publishable.
Not publishable: The manuscript is rejected due to substantial deficiencies identified during the qualitative and quantitative evaluation process.

2.3. Final Editorial Decision

The reviewers’ recommendations determine the publication viability of the manuscript and are examined during an Editorial Team meeting, in which the final decision regarding publication is made. This decision will be formally communicated to the authors in writing.

In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the Editor-in-Chief may request an additional review from another specialist.

2.4. Final Revision and Evaluation

For manuscripts accepted subject to revisions, authors must submit a revised version incorporating the comments and recommendations provided by the external reviewers. The Editorial Team will verify whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed and determine whether the manuscript is ready to proceed to publication. The final decision will be officially communicated to the author by the journal’s Editorial Team.

3. Publication Guidelines for Dossier and Review Submissions

This section establishes the guidelines for the submission, evaluation, and publication of manuscripts intended for the Dossier and Reviews sections.

Authors must register their manuscripts through the journal’s platform (OJS) and upload the required supplementary documents, including images, photographs, and the author form corresponding to the section in which the manuscript is submitted. All information must be complete and accurately provided in order to avoid delays in the evaluation process.

The manuscript then undergoes an administrative screening and verification of formal requirements. If omissions or formatting issues are identified, authors will be requested to address the corresponding observations before the manuscript proceeds to the next stage.

The manuscript is subsequently evaluated by the Editorial Team through a preliminary assessment. At this stage, the manuscript is reviewed for thematic relevance, originality, scholarly contribution, and alignment with the journal’s editorial scope. If it meets the established criteria, the decision “Accepted for Editorial Processing” is issued. Otherwise, the author will be notified of the rejection, and the submission file will be closed.

Approved manuscripts for the Dossier and Reviews sections proceed to the editorial production stage. The first step is copyediting, which involves reviewing spelling, grammar, syntax, and overall clarity of expression. Subsequently, the DOI is assigned and the metadata required for the identification, retrieval, and indexing of the document are incorporated. Finally, the manuscript proceeds to layout and publication. Upon completion of these stages, the editorial process concludes, and the document becomes available for dissemination and consultation.

4. Authorship Requirements

To certify authorship of a manuscript, the following fundamental criteria must be met:

Make substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work, or to the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data.
Participate in the drafting of the manuscript, making a significant contribution to its intellectual content.
Assume responsibility for all aspects of the work, ensuring that any questions regarding the accuracy or integrity of any part of the manuscript are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In accordance with these criteria, the author or authors must complete and submit to ANTEC: Revista Peruana de Investigación Musical the documentation certifying authorship, including the required author forms, which must be signed by all contributors to the manuscript.

Regarding authorship roles, each author is responsible for identifying and agreeing upon their specific contribution according to the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) framework, based on their participation in the research process.