The main aim of JIMS is to promote
collaboration between humanities and sciences in musicology. All
submissions to JIMS must address a musically relevant issue and
demonstrate a synergetic interaction between humanities and sciences.
Submissions may be purely empirical, purely theoretical, or a mixture
of the two.
conform to these guidelines (including OPC submissions - see below) are
subject to a confidential peer-review procedure. The procedure is
administered by an action editor who is invited by the administrative
or guest editor/s; administrative and guest editors may also act as
action editors themselves. The (first) author is responsible for all
communication with the action editor, which is generally electronic
(email with attachments). The (first) author is also responsible for
informing any other author(s) about such communications.
JIMS welcomes contributions from researchers at all stages in their
careers. The peer review procedure focuses on the content of the
submission, not the qualification of the author(s). All editors,
reviewers and commentators must hold a PhD in a relevant discipline and
relevant publications in internationally recognized journals; there is
no such requirement for authors.
JIMS assigns all editors, authors, reviewers and commentators
to the humanities or the sciences according to the disciplinary
infrastructures in which they are qualified and/or have published. In
ambiguous cases, JIMS reserves the right to make an autonomous
decision. In this process, the English word "humanities" is assumed to
be roughly equivalent to both the German word "Geisteswissenschaften"
and the French expression "lettres et sciences humaines". The English
word "science" is assumed to comprise natural, social and formal
sciences and to exclude humanities (musicstudies.org/infor.html).
JIMS does not publish summaries or reviews of current literature.
Theoretical contributions should explain and defend clearly articulated
claims or theses, which should be analysed from different perspectives.
Those perspectives should in turn be critically evaluated. Authors
should systematically explore arguments and evidence for and against
their claims, considering sources from both humanities and sciences,
and striving to maintain a balance between the two. The introduction
should review relevant literature in humanities and sciences; the
central section(s) of the text should make detailed connections between
these literatures, achieving a plausible and original synergy.
submitted as a single pdf file that includes all text,
figures, tables and any other material intended for publication. Pages
are numbered throughout. The format conforms to the JIMS template
document (you can download it here either as word
and either the Chicago
Manual of Style or the American Psychological
Association Manual. Each
new submission is accompanied by a statement of authorship,
conflict of interest, and copyright.
procedure involves two separate stages:
accompanied by a cover letter, in which the first author responds to
every suggestion by every reviewer in the following format:
- The submission
at least two independent experts. At least
one of them is qualified in the submission`s main humanities discipline
and at least one in its main science discipline (as indicated in the
abstract). Reviewers are asked whether the submission should be
accepted or rejected for publication and to give suggestions
for improving the content. The first author then revises the article
according to their suggestions. If
one humanities reviewer and one sciences
reviewer independently recommend rejection and back up their case
plausibly, the submission is rejected.In
this process, the reviewers should feel free to act independently of
authors whose work they are evaluating. If a reviewer believes that
there may be a conflict of interest, s/he is asked to contact the
administrative editor before writing the review.
- After the text has been
the satisfaction of the reviewers, the action editor comments on the
presentation, considering its clarity, structure, and
interdisciplinarity (see aims).
In general, the
text should be interesting for, and readable by, representatives of
both stated background disciplines. The
article is only accepted for publication after further revision to
the satisfaction of the action editor.
reviewer's suggestion may only be ignored
if the (first)
author and action editor agree that the suggestion is erroneous,
inappropriate, or irrelevant.
one or more extracts from the revised
submission that show how the
author/s responded to it
cover letter also
briefly documents any other
substantive changes since the previous submission. Responsibility for
accepting or rejecting such additional
changes lies with the action editor. The final manuscript
should be submitted in a
text-processor format (e.g. Microsoft Word, but not LateX) and pdf. No
paper copy is required.
disagreements during this process can be addressed by seeking the
opinions of other editors.
versus Open Peer Commentary (OPC) submissions
both regular and
special issues of JIMS, authors can
choose between regular and OPC submissions.
The format of the
submission is the same in both cases,
including the length and format of the abstract. The abstract includes
background paragraphs in two main disciplines - one in humanities and
one in sciences. These paragraphs are expanded upon in the main text to
demonstrate a synergy between humanities and sciences.
differ from regular submissions as
There is no
restriction on the authorship of OPC
submissions. We accept single-author submissions and submissions whose
authors are only humanities scholars or only scientists. Regular
have at least two authors, of which
the first two are a humanities scholar and a scientist in either
The length of an
OPC submission (all text including
title page, abstract, tables, references, biographies, figure captions)
is limited to 8000 words. The limit is relaxed to 9000 words following
review to allow authors to respond to reviewers' suggestions. (There is
no limit on the length of regular submissions, but reviewers
may recommend changing the length.)
are accompanied by an email with a
list of three colleagues who have accepted to write peer commentaries
if the submission is accepted for publication. If the submission is
proposed by a humanities scholar, all three suggested commentators
should belong to the sciences, and vice versa. Additional suggestions
from any discipline are welcome. The email should include the email
addresses and homepage addresses (or CVs) of all proposed commentators.
4. Reviewers of OPC
submissions are informed about the
OPC procedure and asked whether, in their opinion and according to
their own criteria, the submission is suitable for publication with
OPC. If one humanities reviewer and one sciences reviewer independently
answer "no" to this question and back up their decision with plausible
arguments, and the submission does not meet the criteria for regular
submissions, the submission is rejected. As for regular submissions,
reviewers should feel independent and free to state their opinions
honestly; if not, they should declare a conflict of interest.
submission is accepted for publication and
revised satisfactorily, the action editor/s begins to invite
commentaries of up to 500 words from experts in relevant areas of
humanities and sciences, including one or more of the commentators
proposed by the author/s. The reviewers are also given the revised
manuscript and an opportunity to write peer commentaries with the
option of concealing the fact that they reviewed the original
In addition, an open call (including titles and abstracts,
but not authors) is launched on the JIMS website and sent to relevant
email lists, in which interested commentators with a doctorate (or
relevant publications in international peer-reviewed journals) in a
relevant discipline are asked contact the action editor. The open call
requires potential commentators to provide their homepage address or CV
and a summary of the planned commentary in 2-3 sentences. The action
editor accepts or rejects such requests depending on the commentator`s
qualification and suitability, and the number and quality of existing
Upon acceptance, the requester receives the complete
revised text for comment. Commentaries should generally be submitted
within three weeks, otherwise the invitation lapses.
selects for publication two to six peer
commentaries from the humanities and two to six from the sciences. For
papers whose first author is a humanities scholar, the number of
commentaries by scientists must equal or exceed the number of
commentaries by humanities scholars, and vice-versa for papers whose
first author is a scientist.
The action editor
ensures that commentaries meet the
following criteria: substantive, constructive, plausible criticism or
interpretation; polite formulation; focus on the issues rather than the
authors (no ad hominem arguments); and reference to appropriate
literature. Commentaries that are not revised satisfactorily according
to the suggestions of the action editor may be rejected.
Following the final
selection and revision of peer
commentaries, they are sent to the (first) author with a request for a
reply of up to 1500 words within three weeks. At this point, neither
the original text nor the commentaries can be changed. If it is
necessary to correct a factual error or to omit part of the text for
well-substantiated legal reasons, and the action editor agrees to the
change, the (first) author may do that provided s/he also informs those
commentators (if any) who referred to the changed part of the text in
their commentaries. They may then change their commentaries
accordingly, provided the action editor approves the change.
If the original
submission has more than one author, the
reply may be written by the first author alone. In their reply, the
author/s provide an integrated overview of the commentaries. They then
respond to the main points of all commentators, referring to the author
of each point by name. The action editor applies the same editorial
principles to the author`s reply as s/he did to the commentaries, and
the author/s is/are similarly bound to comply with her/his
Finally, the action
editor forwards the complete text of
the article, all commentaries that have been selected for publication,
and the author`s reply to the administrative editor (for regular
submissions) or guest editor/s (for special issues). They may ask for
further revisions or for the deletion of any passage or commentary.
problems and suggestions
(first) author is a scientist are
often considered to be weak by humanities reviewers, and vice-versa. To
avoid this problem, make sure that every point made in the two
background sections of your abstract is carefully elaborated in the
main text, focusing on aspects that lie outside the primary expertise
of the (first) author. As the main text proceeds, a balanced synergy
should emerge between those background sections. Towards the end of the
paper, consider the implications of the main conclusions for both
sciences and humanities. If the central part of the paper is biased
toward sciences, pay particular attention in the final part of the
paper to implications for humanities, or to placing the findings in a
humanities context; and vice versa.
of books and conferences
JIMS also publishes
reviews of books and conferences
that primarily address musical issues, promote synergetic interactions
among humanities and sciences, are internationally clearly visible, and
control the quality of academic content by an acceptable peer-review
procedure. Reviews are limited
to 2000 words and may be subject to a separate peer-review procedure.
Authors of relevant books, organizers of relevant conferences, and
potential reviewers are invited to contact to the review editor.
JIMS is an open-access journal. Accepted contributions are published on the internet with DOI
were revised in June 2012 by Ali Cenk Gedik, Richard Parncutt, Barbara
Tillmann, and Frans Wiering to include the option of OPC, and again by
Richard Parncutt in August 2015 to add more detail about the regular
review procedure. They may be
changed at any time without notice.