1: Focus and Scope

Nordic Theatre Studies is the leading academic journal for theatre researchers in the Nordic and Baltic countries and for all scholars writing about theatre and performance related to these countries. It has been selected for inclusion in Web of Science and Scopus as well as Ebsco and Google Scholar. Nordic Theatre Studies covers theatre, dance, music theatre and other performances, mainly after 1850, in the Nordic and Baltic countries, and articles by authors from Nordic and Baltic countries that relate to theatre, dance and performance in all parts of the world. It is a peer-reviewed journal publishing two issues a year. The journal is divided into a thematic section, an open section for other topics, and a book review section. The journal also publishes occasional shorter essays (which are peer-reviewed and can use a more personal approach). Specialising in Nordic and Baltic theatre research, it prioritizes articles that relate to some aspect of Nordic or Baltic theatre and performance, or that have been written by a scholar resident in a Nordic or Baltic country. It has been a print journal since 1988, and recently converted into an online publication so that it is freely accessible to scholars around the world. It is published by the Association of Theatre Scholars.

2: Journal History

In 1988, the Association for Theatres Scholars (Föreningen Nordiska Teaterforskare) established Nordic Theatre Studies as a journal of scholarly writing on theatre. Ever since it has published research on all aspects of theatre in the Nordic region, including since 2012 the Baltic countries Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, and it has promoted Nordic and Baltic scholars writing on any aspect of theatre in the world. Within the Nordic and Baltic region, it is the only English language publication on its subject. Since 2014 NTS is published twice every year. One number addresses a certain theme announced in a call for contributions, the other number is dedicated to selected and peer reviewed articles developed from papers presented at conferences, seminars and/or workshops organized by or in collaboration with the Association. The themed numbers of the journal also allow for a few articles, which do not address the theme, as well as essays. Each number has a section with reviews of new publications within the field of theatre studies.

3: Peer Review Process

Double-blind peer review

Nordic Theatre Studies operates a double-blind peer review system. The journal appoints at least two external peer reviewers for each article, both of whom normally have a doctoral degree and a high level of expertise on the topic of the article. The identities of both reviewers and authors are concealed from each other throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors must ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in such a way that they do not reveal their identities to reviewers, either directly or indirectly.  

Authors will prepare their submission with two separate files, a title page and an anonymised manuscript:

Title Page

The title page will remain separate from the manuscript throughout the peer review process and will not be sent to the reviewers. It should include:

The manuscript title

All authors’ names and affiliations

A complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address

Acknowledgements and funding sources

A conflict of Interest statement (where necessary)

The Anonymised Manuscript

The author will remove any identifying information, such as authors’ names or affiliations, from the manuscript before submission.

Use the third person to refer to work that the authors have previously published. For example, write “Willmar Sauter (2002) has demonstrated” rather than “I/the author have previously demonstrated (Sauter, 2002)”.

Make sure that figures and tables do not contain any reference to author affiliations.

Exclude acknowledgements and any references to funding sources. (Use the title page, which is not sent to reviewers, to detail these and to declare any potential conflict of interest to the Editor.)

Choose file names with care, and ensure that the file’s properties are also anonymised.

Take care to ensure that you do not inadvertently upload identifying information within any of the files that will be shared with the reviewers.

4: Open Access Policy

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.

5: Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher. This ethic statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors,

Publication decisions
The editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Fair play
An editor will at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

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

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the express written consent of the author.

6: DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

Promptness
Any selected referee 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 excuse themselves from the review process.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously formulated should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and 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 competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

7: DUTIES OF AUTHORS

Reporting Standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Evidence and underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficiently detailed references to permit others to reconstruct its argument. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw evidence and data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such evidence, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such evidence and data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.

Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The journal editor will make every effort to process and evaluate submissions in a timely fashion. Should an author decide to submit the manuscript to another journal, they must request the journal editor to withdraw the manuscript from consideration.

Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scholarly understanding of the question under study.

Authorship of the Paper
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. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence 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 own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

8: PROCEDURES FOR DEALING WITH UNETHICAL BEHAVIOUR

Identification of unethical behaviour

  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
  • Misconduct and unethical behaviour may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
  • Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

  • An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.
  • Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

  • Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

  • Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the publisher or Society as appropriate, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

  • Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
  • A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behaviour.
  • Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
  • Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
  • A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
  • Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
  • Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
  • Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.

9: Sources of Support

NOP-HS Scientific Journal grant