Peer Review Policy

MPAR uses double-blind peer review. Author and reviewer identities are concealed from one another during review.

Editorial screening

An editor first checks scope, originality, clarity, ethical compliance, permissions and whether the argument or practice-research documentation is sufficient for specialist review. A manuscript may be declined at this stage if it is promotional, substantially incomplete or outside the journal's remit.

External review

Suitable manuscripts are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject or methodological expertise. Reviewers consider the question, context, engagement with scholarship and creative work, method, evidence, interpretation, contribution and presentation.

Decision and revision

Editorial decisions may be accept, minor revision, major revision or reject. Authors should answer each comment and identify changes. Revision does not guarantee acceptance. The editor makes the final decision and may seek further review.

Confidentiality and conflicts

Editors and reviewers must keep manuscripts and unpublished creative work confidential, declare conflicts and avoid using submitted material. Authors may appeal by identifying a specific factual or procedural error.