SWARA: Jurnal Antologi Pendidikan Musik applies a double-anonymous peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. All research articles submitted to the journal undergo editorial screening and, if considered suitable, peer review by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Upon submission, the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editor evaluates the manuscript to determine its relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, academic quality, compliance with the author guidelines, and adherence to publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements, fall outside its scope, or raise significant ethical concerns may be rejected without external review. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening proceed to peer review.

Reviewers are selected based on their academic expertise, research experience, and suitability to evaluate the submitted manuscript. The journal seeks reviewers who are independent of the authors and have no conflicts of interest concerning the manuscript.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting an invitation. The journal does not assign reviewers who have significant personal, professional, institutional, or financial relationships that could compromise the objectivity of their evaluations.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

1. Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
2. Originality and contribution to the development of music education and related fields.
3. Clarity of the research objectives and the significance of the study.
4. Appropriateness of the theoretical framework, research methods, and data analysis.
5. Accuracy and depth of the results, discussion, and interpretation.
6. Quality of academic writing, organization, references, and presentation.
7. Compliance with publication ethics and research integrity.

Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, and evidence-based comments to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers provide recommendations to the editor, who makes the final editorial decision. The possible decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication without further substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited revisions before a final decision.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

The editorial decision is based on the reviewers' assessments, the manuscript's academic merit, its relevance to the journal, and compliance with publication ethics. Reviewers' recommendations are advisory; the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor.

Authors must address the reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the deadline specified by the editor. Authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed. If a suggestion is not followed, the authors should provide a clear justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers when further assessment is necessary. Failure to submit a revision within the specified period, without an approved extension, may result in the manuscript being considered withdrawn or requiring resubmission.

All submitted manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, copy, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must conduct their evaluations objectively and respectfully. They must not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript or share review materials with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished manuscript content to publicly accessible generative AI tools or other third-party services that may compromise confidentiality. Any permitted use of technological assistance must comply with the journal's confidentiality and publication ethics policies.

Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence the review or editorial decision. The journal will take appropriate measures to manage such conflicts, including appointing an alternative reviewer or editor when necessary.

Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. Such manuscripts will be assigned to an independent editor.

The journal aims to complete the initial editorial screening within approximately two weeks of submission. Reviewers are normally requested to submit their evaluations within two to four weeks of accepting the review invitation.

These timeframes are targets rather than guarantees and may vary depending on reviewer availability, the need for additional reviews, and the extent of revisions required. Authors will be informed of significant delays when appropriate.

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a reasoned appeal to the Editor-in-Chief by email. The appeal must explain the grounds for reconsideration and, where applicable, provide evidence addressing factual errors or significant misunderstandings in the review process.

Appeals will be assessed impartially. The journal may seek an independent assessment when necessary. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance, and the decision following the appeal is final.