PUBLICATION ETHICS AND EDITORIAL POLICY

Adherence to international standards of publication ethics

The editorial board of the scientific journal “Ethnomusicology” follows generally recognized international principles of publication ethics in its activities, in particular the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), and the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). This implies adherence to the principles of academic integrity, transparency of editorial procedures, objective and unbiased peer review, as well as responsible evaluation of research results based on their content and scientific value. The editorial board of the journal “Ethnomusicology” maintains a certain level of requirements in the selection and acceptance of articles submitted to the journal. These standards are determined by the journal’s academic scope and by the quality standards of scholarly work and its presentation accepted in the academic community. The editorial board calls for adherence to the principles of the Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical responsibilities of editors

The editor must consider all manuscripts submitted for publication without prejudice, evaluating each appropriately regardless of race, religion, nationality, as well as the position or place of work of the author(s). Information shall not be accepted for publication if there are sufficient grounds to believe that it constitutes plagiarism. All materials submitted for publication undergo thorough selection and peer review. The editorial board reserves the right to reject an article or return it for revision. The author is obliged to revise the article in accordance with the comments of reviewers or the editorial board. The editor’s decision on acceptance of an article for publication is based on such characteristics as the importance of the results, originality, quality of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Manuscripts may be rejected without peer review if the editor considers that they do not correspond to the journal’s scope. When making such decisions, the editor may consult members of the editorial board or reviewers.

The editorial board of the journal conducts mandatory screening of all submitted manuscripts for academic plagiarism using specialized software. Only original scientific works that have not been previously published and are not under consideration in other publications are accepted for review. In the event that signs of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation of sources are detected, the manuscript is rejected without further peer review. Authors bear full responsibility for the content of the submitted materials, compliance with the principles of academic integrity, and the correctness of references to the sources used.

Ethical responsibilities of authors

Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work or words of others, this has been properly cited or quoted. Submission of the same manuscript to more than one journal is considered unethical behavior and is unacceptable. The article must be structured, contain sufficient references, and be formatted in accordance with the requirements. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements in an article constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. The corresponding author must ensure that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the article and have agreed to its publication. Authors bear full responsibility for the content of the articles and for the fact of their publication. The editorial board of the journal bears no responsibility to authors for any possible damage caused by the publication of an article. The editorial board has the right to retract an article if it is discovered that during the publication process someone’s rights or generally accepted norms of scientific ethics have been violated. The editorial board informs the author about the fact of the retraction.

Ethical obligations of reviewers

In order to ensure objectivity in the evaluation of manuscripts, the editorial office adheres to the double-blind peer review model. As peer review is an essential stage in the publication process and, consequently, in the functioning of the scientific method as such, every scholar is expected to contribute to peer review activities. If a selected reviewer is not confident that their expertise matches the level of the research presented in the manuscript, they should promptly decline the review. The reviewer must objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, including the experimental and theoretical work presented, its interpretation and presentation, as well as the extent to which the work meets high academic and scholarly standards. The reviewer should respect the intellectual independence of the authors and provide clear and well-reasoned explanations of their judgments so that editors and authors can understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, conclusion, or argument has been previously published should be accompanied by an appropriate reference. The reviewer should draw the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any published paper or any manuscript submitted concurrently to another journal. Reviewers must not use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript without the author’s consent.

Plagiarism screening policy

All manuscripts are initially assessed by the editors to determine their compliance with the journal’s scope and requirements. Submitted manuscripts are sent for review to a specialist in the relevant field (a member of the editorial board). The manuscript undergoes double-blind peer review: neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other’s identity. The review process is aimed at providing the most objective evaluation of the content of the scientific article, determining its compliance with the journal’s requirements, and includes a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the submitted work. The reviewer provides a recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, indicating the main shortcomings of the article (if any), and concludes with one of the following recommendations: “recommended”, “recommended subject to revision”, or “not recommended”.

Handling of complaints and article retractions

The editorial board adheres to transparent procedures for responding to violations of publication ethics in accordance with COPE recommendations. Detailed information:
Complaints procedure
Article retraction procedure

Principles of fair evaluation (DORA)

The journal supports the principles of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). We evaluate submitted materials solely on the basis of their scientific content, methodological quality, and contribution to science, rather than journal metrics or authors’ citation indicators. The journal recognizes various forms of scholarly output, including theoretical and empirical studies, datasets, critical editions, translations, and reviews.