Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement


  1. Editorial Board and Duties of Editors
  2. Authors and Authors’ responsibilities
  3. Peer-review process and Duties of Reviewers
  4. Publication Ethics
  5. Copyright and access
  6. Archiving
  1. Editorial Board and Duties of Editors

    The editors, editorial board, and contact information for this journal can be found at

    1. Fair play and editorial independence

      Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, and do not discriminate on the basis of the authors’ race, gender identity, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. We have a positive commitment to examining our own editorial biases and to anti-discrimination and anti-racism within our policies and practices. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The editorial team has collective authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

    2. Confidentiality

      Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, and other editorial advisers, as appropriate.

    3. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

      Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another member of the editorial team or editorial board to handle the manuscript.

    4. Publication decisions

      The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. Each issue will have an assigned editor or editors who are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The issue editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

    5. Involvement and cooperation in investigations

      Editors will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. Performance Philosophy editors follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the journal.

  2. Authors and Authors’ responsibilities

    There are no fees for publishing with Performance Philosophy. Authors agree to the following responsibilities:

    1. Originality and plagiarism

      Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

    2. Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

      Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

    3. Authorship of the manuscript

      Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author/s should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

    4. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

      Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number if any).

    5. Acknowledgement of sources

      Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

    6. Human or non-human animal subjects

      If the work involves the use of non-human animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

    7. Peer review

      Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary” or “resubmit for review”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.

    8. Fundamental errors in published works

      When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.

  3. Peer-review process and Duties of Reviewers

    Performance Philosophy operates a system of double-blind peer review, except in the case of submissions such as interviews and non-traditional formats where authors cannot be anonymised. In this case, pieces will be reviewed but not blind. To every submission that is accepted for consideration the Editors attach two external reviewers whose areas of expertise align with the subject matter of the proposed article. The Editors will make the final decision about publication or assess the need for further revision. We endeavour to get a decision back to authors within 12 weeks of submission.

    1. Contribution to editorial decisions

      Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts.

    2. Promptness

      Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

    3. Confidentiality

      Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the issue editor(s) (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

    4. Reviewing guidelines

      Reviewers’ observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

      Reviews should address the following guidelines:

      • Originality of the submission. How distinctive is the work being undertaken? What new juxtapositions does it propose? In what ways does it build upon and contribute to existing scholarship, artistic practice or experimentation?
      • Relevance to Performance Philosophy. Does the submission address some aspect of the relationship between performance and philosophy, or offer insight into what such a relationship might be? (This need not necessarily be an equivocal relationship between the two: contributions might emphasise how performance can help illuminate or rearticulate philosophical questions, or conversely, the way philosophical interrogation can help illuminate or rearticulate questions of performance broadly conceived.)
      • Clarity of articulation and substantiation of its argument, aims, or intended effects. How clear is it what the submission is setting out to do, and how well does it achieve it? Is there sufficient example, exploration, or demonstration to support what it is setting out to do?
      • Form and structure. Is the form of the submission appropriate to its content? Has due consideration been given to questions of form, structure, style and presentation? Does the structure hold up?
      • Strengths of the submission. Please address what you see as the strengths of the submission, so we know what is working about it.
      • Areas for improvement. Please address what you see as the weaknesses of the submission, so we know what could be improved about it.

      Comments for the editors. When you submit your review, there will also be a field for you to submit any comments to be read only by the editors (not the author[s]).

    5. Acknowledgement of sources

      Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.

    6. Disclosure and conflicts of interest

      Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

      Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

  4. Publication Ethics

    Handling of unethical publishing behaviour

    In cases of alleged or proven misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the editors will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

  5. Copyright and access

    Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal, provided it is for non-commercial uses; and that lets others excerpt, translate, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

    This journal permits and encourages authors to post items submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories both prior to and after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit, if applicable, its publication in this journal.

    Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.

    If authors wish to include any third-party material in their article for which they do not hold copyright, they must obtain written permission from the copyright owner for their work to be included under these terms. Such material may be in the form of text, data, table, illustration, photograph, line drawing, audio clip, video clip, film still, and screenshot, and any supplemental material that is proposed to be included.

    This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. We do not charge fees for accessing articles, nor for publishing or processing submissions.

  6. Archiving

    This journal is included in the Public Knowledge Project Private LOCKSS Network (PKP PLN), a distributed archiving system that creates permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More about LOCKSS and the PKP PLN. at and