REVIEW PROCEDURE FOR MANUSCRIPTS IN THE JOURNAL “ETNOMUSYKA”

1. General provisions

1.1. This policy defines the procedure for peer review of manuscripts submitted to the editorial office of the journal “Etnomusic”.
1.2. Peer review is conducted in order to:
– ensure a high academic standard of the journal;
– select high-quality, original, and relevant research;
– uphold the principles of academic integrity.
1.3. In the peer review process, the editorial office follows internationally recognized standards of publication ethics, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Principles of peer review

2.1. The journal applies the double-blind peer review model.
2.2. Confidentiality implies:
– non-disclosure of authors’ personal data to reviewers;
– non-disclosure of reviewers’ personal data to authors.
2.3. All materials submitted for review are treated as confidential documents.

3. Initial assessment of the manuscript

3.1. All manuscripts submitted to the editorial office undergo an initial assessment (desk review).
3.2. At this stage, the following is carried out:
– verification of the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope;
– evaluation of its academic quality and originality;
– checking compliance with technical formatting requirements;
– preliminary assessment of adherence to academic integrity standards.
3.3. The initial assessment is conducted by the editor-in-chief or the deputy editor-in-chief.
3.4. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s requirements may be rejected without external review.

4. Appointment of reviewers

4.1. At least one reviewer is assigned to each manuscript.
4.2. The reviewer is selected:
– from among members of the editorial board;
– or from among external independent experts.
4.3. The reviewer must:
– possess academic expertise in the subject area of the manuscript;
– have relevant scholarly publications in the field (preferably within the last 5 years).
4.4. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must decline the review.

5. Peer review procedure

5.1. Peer review is conducted using a standardized review form.
5.2. The reviewer evaluates the manuscript according to the following criteria:
– relevance of the research topic;
– scientific originality;
– methodological soundness;
– theoretical and practical significance of the results;
– coherence and clarity of presentation;
– consistency of conclusions with the current state of research;
– compliance with academic integrity standards;
– accuracy of citations and referencing.

6. Editorial decisions

6.1. Based on the review, one of the following decisions is made:
– accept for publication;
– accept after revision;
– request additional (second) review;
– reject.
6.2. If revision or rejection is recommended, the reviewer provides substantiated comments.
6.3. The author is required to address the reviewer’s comments or provide a reasoned response.

7. Additional review

7.1. An additional review may be requested in cases of:
– insufficient expertise of the initial reviewer;
– conflicting or controversial evaluations;
– insufficiently substantiated review.

8. Ethical principles

8.1. All participants in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, editors) must adhere to the principles of:
– objectivity;
– impartiality;
– confidentiality;
– academic integrity.
8.2. Any instances of plagiarism, fabrication, or falsification of data constitute grounds for rejection of the manuscript.