Art of Record Production Conference Submissions & Proceedings

Information and Instructions for Authors

1.0   General information & ‘call for papers’

1.1   The Art of Record Production Conference

The Art of Record Production conference is an international event for scholars, members of industry and students, as well as anyone interested in the study of all aspects of record production. The conference is linked with the Journal on the Art of Record Production. Both the conference and journal are associated with ASARP: The Association for the Study of the Art of Record Production.

1.2   Conference Directors

The conference Directors are Simon Zagorski-Thomas (London College of Music, TVU) and Katia Isakoff (University of Glamorgan).

1.3   Registration fee

The conference has a registration fee, set by the host institution each year. Concessions are made for students and for ASARP members. The registration fee is payable before the conference begins. A conference dinner is arranged by the host institution whereby an additional payment is required from those wishing to attend.

1.4   Call for papers

The host institution, in conjunction with the conference directors, announces the conference with a ‘call for papers’ around 8 months before the conference is due to take place. The ‘call’ includes details of the host institution, registration information, conference ‘streams’ and preliminary details of guests and panels. It will also contain details pertaining to the abstract word count limit.The ‘call’ is announced through the ASARP mailing list, other mailing lists including IASPM and placed on many scholarly websites and blogs. Authors are usually given up to 8 weeks to submit an Abstract by a published deadline. No abstracts are accepted once the deadline has passed.

2.0   Abstracts

2.1   Declaration of authorship

Authorship should be declared at the point of abstract submission. Any co-author(s) must also be declared at the point of abstract submission. Once an abstract has been submitted, additional authors may not be added at a later stage. This includes at the acceptance/ conference/ proceedings stages.

2.2   Institutional affiliation

Authors should declare their institutional affiliation at the point of abstract submission. If their affiliation changes between the abstract submission/ conference/ proceedings stages, they may request the change by writing to the conference Directors. Changes will be made according to the author’s request, unless the abstracts/ proceedings have already been published. It is not compulsory to have an institutional affiliation when submitting an abstract. Abstracts from independent, retired or non-affiliated scholars, members of industry or professional organisations are welcomed and encouraged.

2.3   Peer Reviewing of Abstracts

* Once the deadline has passed, all abstracts are collected, anonymised, numbered and grouped by continent by a member of the JARP editorial board and/ or designate. [1]

* The anonymised abstracts are then passed to the peer review administrator,[2] who distributes them to members of the peer review team[3] for ‘blind’ peer review.

* In order to ensure and maintain a rigorous procedure, each abstract is sent to 3 peer reviewers based in different continents (i.e. UK/ EU abstracts are sent to US/ AU reviewers)

* Peer reviewers score individual abstracts on both quality and relevance to the conference ‘streams’ detailed in the initial call. Peer reviewers may also make comments and suggestions pertaining to the abstract’s quality, theme or relevance.

* Once the peer review process is complete, the results are gathered in and average ‘quality’ and ‘relevance’ scores are taken from the 3 reviews for each abstract.

* The peer review administrator collates the aggregate scores in ascending order and delivers the results to the editorial board member/ designate who originally anonymised them.

* The editorial board member/ designate matches the abstract number to the author, decides the ‘cut off’ point (based on how many papers the host institution can accommodate), and delivers the result to individual authors.

NB. Please note that the conference has seen a year-on-year increase in abstract submissions. Standards are high and the peer review process is rigorous. Peer reviewers are encouraged to make suggestions and recommendations for improvement where the abstract quality/ relevance score is low.

2.4   Abstract acceptance/ declination

The host institution decides the total number of papers that can be presented at that year’s conference (this has ranged from 40 – 60 in recent years). Authors will be notified of their abstract acceptance/ declination by email, containing feedback/ comments pertinent to their work. ASARP, ARP, JARP and the Conference host reserve the right to reject submissions without entering into communication.

2.5   Withdrawal after acceptance

An author may choose to withdraw from the conference at any time leading up to the event. Notice must be given to the conference Directors by authors wishing to withdraw. In this event, a place will be offered to a ‘reserve’ author; usually this is the author placed directly below the original ‘cut-off point’ in the aggregate scores. Authors choosing to withdraw from the conference may not submit their papers to the proceedings.

2.6   Tabled papers

Tabled papers are not normally permitted and will only be considered in exceptional circumstances. In the event of unforeseen and/ or mitigating circumstances (such as transport cancellations), authors may request to present their paper by Skype or video conference. Requests for presentations via web link should be made to the conference Directors.

3.0   Keynote speakers, guest speakers, panelists and plenary sessions

3.1   Keynote speakers

Suggestions regarding keynote speakers are welcomed. Recommendations and/ or contact details may be passed to the conference directors and/ or host institution.

The conference Directors liaise with the host institution and invite a guest to deliver a keynote speech. This may be a prominent academic or industry professional.

3.2   Guest speakers, panelists and plenary sessions

The conference may include plenary sessions, roundtable discussions, invited guest

appearances, book readings, equipment demonstrations and ‘poster’ presentations.

Plenary, roundtable and panel discussion themes are decided by the conference Directors in conjunction with the host institution. Guests are invited at the conference Directors’ and host institutions’ discretion. Suggestions for guest speakers, panelists or discussion topics are welcomed by the conference Directors.

4.0 Conference proceedings

4.1 Published proceedings

* The proceedings are the published accounts of presentations given at the conference. The proceedings are published to: a) recognise the attendance of authors who presented at the conference; b) acknowledge the contribution made by authors to the conference; and c) to give individuals who did not attend the conference the opportunity to read presented papers.

* Shortly after the conference has closed, written papers are collected from those wishing to submit to the proceedings. Normally, the deadline for written proceedings is 1 week after the conference closing date.

* Presenters should follow the ARP template when submitting to the proceedings. The ARP conference proceedings template is available on the JARP website as both .doc and .rtf file formats.

* Proceedings should represent the research project as a whole and should not simply be notes accompanying the presentation. The minimum requirement is 4,000 words up to a maximum of 6,000.

NB. Only authors who presented their papers at the conference (in person or by Skype/ video conference) will be invited to submit to the proceedings.

4.2 Peer Reviewing of Conference Proceedings

* Once the proceedings deadline has passed, all papers are collected, anonymised, numbered and grouped by continent by a member of the JARP editorial board.*

* The anonymised abstracts are then passed to the peer review administrator**, who distributes them to members of the peer review team*** for ‘blind’ peer review.

* In order to ensure and maintain a rigorous procedure, each paper is sent to 3 peer reviewers based in different continents (i.e. UK/ EU abstracts are sent to US/ AU reviewers)

* Peer reviewers work to a reviews template, making sure the paper complies with formatting requirements, is adequately referenced, appropriate in length and original in content.

* Peer reviewers may make one of three recommendations: 1) to accept the paper; 2) to accept the paper with revisions; or 3) to reject the paper.

* Once all recommendations are received, the results are passed back to the authors.

* Authors required to revise their papers will do so to a published deadline (usually 2-3 weeks after receiving their peer review feedback)

NB. In instances whereby one peer reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection, the paper in question is passed to the JARP Editors in Chief. Their decision is final.

4.3 Publishing of Conference Proceedings

Once all accepted/ revised papers have been received, the papers are collated for publication.