About the Journal

We encourage submissions from all forms of artistic- and practice-related research, such as new musicology, performance research, artistic practice, arts-based research, practice as research, performance research, practice-infused research, and other AR-offshoots. The journal accepts articles in Norwegian, Swedish, Danish or English.

Peer-review 

PS is a single-blind, peer-reviewed journal, in which two external referees are picked from the journal’s extensive panel of experts. The nature of refereeing within the field of artistic research is a topic of continuing debate; nationally and internationally. The controversy is not necessarily about whether the artistic outputs can be assessed – few fields are more critiqued, scrutinized, and commercially valued than the arts – but rather whether different outputs (with different sets of values) may be comparably equalled within the same system; and in this case the same journal. PS believes the following review process systematizes a set of values crucial to artistic research, which both incorporates artistic critique sensitive to the individual outputs (as developed within the different artforms), as well as underlining a set of research criteria which contributes towards lifting the work into academia as well. We do this by asking the referees to evaluate the research content of the submitted work, and have formulated a check-list which upholds this content disregarding the submission format: 

  1. format appropriate to artistic output 
  2. level of presentability according to format 
  3. artistic innovation and/or originality 
  4. contribution to new knowledge 
  5. effective mediation of knowledge 
  6. contextualisation of theme 

 
Based on ‘passing’ these criteria, the reviewer then concludes with the following categories: 
 

  1. rejected 
  2. substantial changes 
  3. accepted with minor revisions 
  4. accepted 

All stages of submission will be approved by the editorial board before final approval is given by the editor for the work to be published.

Open Access Policy 

PlaySpace provides immediate open access to its content, including all links to artistic work. You are free to use the content – with accurate referencing – for educational purposes.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement  

– based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines

PLAYspace publishes peer-reviewed content, both upholding the best standards of publication ethics, as well as taking all possible measures against publication malpractices. The editorial team has adopted the following guidelines for the duties and responsibilities of authors, editors and peer reviewers. 

 

Authors' duties and responsibilities 

  • Reporting standards 

Contributors should present the work accurately, contextualising its significance where appropriate. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper, and the text should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. 

  • Data access and retention 

If relevant, authors may be asked to provide background material, raw data, artistic work or otherwise, for editorial review, and should be prepared to make data publicly available if practical. In any event, authors should ensure the accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the rights of the participants (confidentiality or otherwise) can be protected and any legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release. 

  • Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources 

Authors will only submit entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing and is unacceptable. 

  • Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication 

In general, papers essentially describing the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Texts that have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere cannot be submitted. Moreover, manuscripts under review by the journal should not be resubmitted to copyrighted publications. However, by submitting a manuscript, the author(s) retain the rights to the published material. 

  • Authorship of the text 

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. 

  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. 

  • Fundamental errors in published works 

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher, and to cooperate with the editor in retracting or correcting the paper in the form of an erratum. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper, or provide evidence to the editor as to the correctness of the original paper. 

  • Proofreading 

It is the authors own responsibility to ensure that the text has gone through sufficient levels of proofreading (Norwegian, Swedish, Danish or English).

 

Editor’s duties and responsibilities 

  • Publication decisions 

The editor is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published. The editor will evaluate manuscripts without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. The decision will be based on the work’s importance, originality and clarity, as well as its relevance to the journal's goals. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered. 

  • Confidentiality 

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted text to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers and the publisher, as deemed appropriate. 

  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest 

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent. 

 

Peer reviewers' duties and responsibilities 

  • Contribution to editorial decisions 

The peer reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions, and may also serve the author in improving the paper. 

  • Promptness 
    Any selected peer reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript, or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process. 
  • Confidentiality 
    Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must also not be disclosed or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor. 
  • Standards of objectivity 

Reviews should be conducted objectively, and personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. 

  • Acknowledgement of sources 

Reviewers should identify cases in which any relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. Reviewers will notify the editor of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration, in addition to any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge. 

  • Disclosure and conflict of interest 

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from any competitive, collaborative or other type of relationship or connection with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the papers.