Publication Ethics

The editorial team of the journal “Ethnomusic” maintains specific standards for the selection and acceptance of submitted articles. These standards are determined by the journal’s academic focus and the quality norms for research and its presentation accepted within the scholarly community. The editorial team encourages adherence to the principles of the Code of Conduct for Scholarly Publishing developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical Responsibilities of the Journal Editors

Editors are required to evaluate all submitted manuscripts impartially, assessing each appropriately regardless of the author’s race, religion, nationality, position, or institutional affiliation. Information suspected of plagiarism is not accepted for publication. All materials submitted for publication undergo thorough screening and peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject a manuscript or return it for revision. Authors are obliged to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board. Editorial decisions regarding the acceptance of a manuscript are based on factors such as the significance of the results, originality, quality of presentation, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Manuscripts may be rejected without review if the editor determines they do not fit the journal’s profile. In making such decisions, the editor may consult members of the editorial board or reviewers.

Plagiarism Check Policy

The journal’s editorial team conducts mandatory checks of all submitted manuscripts for academic plagiarism using specialized software. Only original research papers that have not been previously published and are not under consideration elsewhere are accepted for review. If signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation are detected, the manuscript is rejected without further peer review. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their submissions, adherence to principles of academic integrity, and the accuracy of references to sources used.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

Authors must ensure that their manuscripts are entirely original, and any use of others’ work or words is properly acknowledged through citations or quoted text. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical and is unacceptable. Articles must be well-structured, include sufficient references, and comply with the journal’s formatting requirements. Dishonest or knowingly inaccurate statements in a manuscript constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its publication. Authors are fully responsible for the content of their articles and for the fact of their publication. The journal’s editorial team assumes no responsibility to authors for any potential harm resulting from publication. The editorial team reserves the right to retract an article if it is found that publication violated someone’s rights or accepted standards of scholarly ethics. Authors will be notified in the event of a retraction.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

To ensure objective evaluation of manuscripts, the journal follows a double-blind peer review process. Since manuscript review is a crucial stage in the publication process and, consequently, in the practice of the scientific method, every scholar is expected to contribute to peer reviewing. If a reviewer feels that their expertise does not match the level of research presented in the manuscript, they should return it immediately. Reviewers must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, including the experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and presentation, and the extent to which the work meets high scientific and scholarly standards. Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of authors and provide clear and reasoned explanations for their judgments so that editors and authors can understand the basis of their comments. Any claim that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously published must be supported by an appropriate reference. Reviewers should alert the editor to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and any published article or manuscript submitted simultaneously to another journal. Reviewers must not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript without the author’s consent.

All manuscripts are initially reviewed by the editors to assess their relevance to the journal’s scope and compliance with its requirements. Submitted manuscripts are then sent to a reviewer (either a member of the editorial board or a specialist in the relevant field). Manuscripts undergo double-blind peer review, meaning that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. The review process is designed to provide an objective evaluation of the manuscript’s content, assess its alignment with the journal’s standards, and offer a thorough analysis of the article’s strengths and weaknesses. The reviewer provides a recommendation on the manuscript’s suitability for publication, noting any major deficiencies, and indicates whether the article: “is recommended,” “is recommended after addressing the specified deficiencies,” or “is not recommended.”

The most common reasons for rejecting a manuscript are:

• Poor or incorrect structure of the manuscript;
• Lack of scientific novelty;
• Insufficient number of relevant references to scholarly sources;
• The article contains theories, concepts, or conclusions not fully supported by data, arguments, or evidence;
• Poor quality of scientific language in the manuscript.

The decision is communicated to the author(s). Manuscripts requiring revision are returned to the author(s) along with the review, which includes specific recommendations for improvement. The revised manuscript is then submitted for a second round of review. If the second review is also negative, the manuscript is rejected and will not be reconsidered. The editorial team does not engage in discussion with authors of rejected manuscripts.