Order of acceptance and peer review of the materials received by the editorial office of “Journal of Musical Science”
All articles received by the editorial office are bound to undergo an independent review.
1. The submitted article sent to the editorial office of the journal is considered by the secretary in charge in terms of its respondency to the journal’s specialization, major publication requirements, format requirements approved by the editorial board of the journal (“Format Requirements”). Authors will find out the information about the admission of the article and further changes of its status through automatic notification sent to their e-mail after putting in the corresponding alterations in the author’s profile on the journal’s website.
2. The scientific journal cannot publish:
– articles containing the earlier published material;
– non-formalized articles;
– articles whose authors do not follow constructive objections of reviewers or give arguments to rebut them.
3. The secretary in charge submits the article for peer review to one or, if necessary, two reviewers. Articles can be reviewed by members of the journal’s editorial board, as well as highly-qualified scientists and specialists from other organizations who possess profound professional knowledge and work experience in a specific scientific field.
All articles submitted to the editorial office must be checked for the correctness of borrowings at the initial stage of acceptance using the software tools of the "Antiplagiat" system» and only after that they are sent for review.
In case of reasonable suspicion of plagiarism or detection of technical techniques to hide its presence, the articles are not accepted for further consideration. The authors are sent a message about the refusal to review due to the suspicion of plagiarism. If plagiarism is found in an already published article, such article is removed from publication without the possibility of restoration (without physical withdrawal of the article, by publishing a statement about the presence of plagiarism on the corresponding pages of the Journal's website and the article file).
If there is an incorrect borrowing in the received article, all cases of such borrowing are considered individually.
The Editorial Board considers plagiarism to be a form of plagiarism:
* use (verbatim quoting) of any materials in any volume without specifying the source;
* use of images, drawings, photographs, tables, graphs, diagrams, and any other forms of graphical representation of information without specifying the source;
* use of images, drawings, photographs, tables, graphs, diagrams and any other forms of graphical representation of information published in scientific and popular publications without the consent of the copyright holder;
* use without written permission of materials whose authors or copyright holders prohibit the use of their materials without special approval.
The Editorial Board refers to the forms of incorrect borrowing:
* lack of quotation marks for the text quoted verbatim if there are references to the source; incorrect references (incomplete bibliographic description of sources that prevents their identification;
* reference not to the first source of the borrowed text without explicit reference to this fact (error in determining the original source);
* no links from the text to the sources listed in the article list;
* excessive citation (if there are references to sources and graphic highlighting of the cited text), the volume of which is not justified by the genre and goals of the article.
The acceptable volume of citations ‑ correct borrowing) is no more than 25 % of the total volume of the article.
Reviews, summaries, and other articles that require more citations for objective reasons are reviewed by the Editorial Board on an individual basis.
Articles whose content is more than 30 % consistent with other scientific materials of the author (dissertation, abstract, monograph, previous publications in journals and collections) are not accepted for publication.
The Editorial Board strongly recommends not to use any technical techniques that allow to increase the evaluation of the text in the "Anti-Plagiarism" system.
4. Articles are reviewed within 30 to 90 days.
5. The review is done in a “blind way”: the author does not know anything about the reviewer (reviewers), and the reviewer knows nothing about the author.
6. If the reviewer gives recommendations for correcting and perfecting the article, the journal’s secretary in charge send the text of the review to the author and suggests they should take them into account when preparing a new variant of the article or they should give reasons to rebut it (fully or partially). A refined (revised) article should be sent for another review. The date when the revised article was sent back is considered the date of entry to the editorial office.
7. The editorial staff reserve the right to decline articles in case the author cannot or does not wish to follow the editorial staff’s recommendations.
8. If the reviewer has not recommended the article to be published, it will not be considered for the second time.
9. If the article or its revised variant is negatively reviewed, it will be declined and the author will be necessarily notified about the reasons for such decision.
10. After the journal’s editorial board decides to admit the article to publication, the secretary in charge informs the author about it via automatic notification.
11. Articles are considered, reviewed, and published in order of precedence according to the subject matter of the issue. The editorial staff reserve the right to change the order of publication. It means that if the article is accepted for publication, it will not necessarily appear in the coming issue. The editorial staff do not discuss their decisions with authors.
12. Reviews are kept at the journal’s editorial office for no less than 5 years. Copies of reviews can be sent to the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation on request.
The editorial staff do not discuss with authors the contents of articles, methods of writing and formalizing scientific articles, and do not pull the articles up to the necessary scientific and methodological level.