Home page

"Aspects of Historical Musicology"
ISSN 2519-4143

Peer review

After a manuscript is submitted, the editor checks the materials for compliance with the rules and scope of the journal as well as for the presence of illegal borrowings. In case of non-compliance of the article with the requirements, it is rejected.

Articles are published after receiving positive feedback from two reviewers appointed by the editors. Members of the editorial board of the collection of research papers 'Problems of Interaction of Art, Pedagogy, Theory and Practice of Education' involved in the peer review process are specialists in the area to which the submission belongs, as well as third-party researchers whose interests coincide with the topic of the work. Reviewers evaluate the article in terms of originality of the results, adequacy of methods and correspondence to the analysis of conclusions and make decisions to accept the article unchanged, revised or to decline it. The editorial board provides double blind peer review (authors do not know information about reviewers, reviewers are unknown for authors).
The editor studies the peer-reviewed materials, makes comments, and decides on the publication. The review process is terminated to one month. After the authors receive the reviewed articles, they are given two weeks to remove the reviewers’ and editors’ remarks.

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific publications, to ensure coordination and balance of interests of authors, readers, editorial board, reviewers and the institution in which the study was conducted. The review procedure is anonymous for both the reviewer and the authors, carried out by independent reviewers (double "blind" reviewing).
Manuscript review is confidential. By submitting the manuscript for the review, the authors entrust the editors with the results of their scientific work and creative efforts, on which their reputation and career may depend. Disclosure of confidential details of a manuscript review violates the author's rights. Editors shall not disclose information about the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, reviewers' critical comments, and final decision) to anyone other than authors and reviewers.
Violation of confidentiality is possible only in case of statement of inaccuracy or falsification of materials, in all other cases, its preservation is mandatory.

Peer review process
The author submits to the editorial board an article that meets the requirements of the journal's policy and formal rules for the published materials. PhD students (in Art Studies) are required to submit a review from a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD in Art Studies) or Doctor of Science (Habil. Dr). Postdoctoral students must submit a review from a Doctor of Science (Habil. Dr). Doctors of Philosophy (PhD in Art Studies) must submit a review from a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD in Art Studies), Associate Professor or Leading Specialist.

  • Manuscripts that do not meet the accepted requirements are not registered and are not allowed for further consideration and the author is notified of it. The article is registered by the executive secretary in the journal of registration with the indication of the date of receipt, title, author’s full name and place of work. The article is assigned an individual registration number.
  • Each manuscript, submitted to the editorial board of the Journal, obligatory undergoes the originality verification procedure with the plagiarism recognition software (Unicheck), which indicates the level of originality, sources and similarity percentage.
  • The Executive Secretary conducts a preliminary evaluation of the articles submitted to the editorial board, their correspondence to the scope of the Journal and the relevance of the research issue.  Then the article is sent for reviewing to the members of the editorial board, scientific editors of sections, experts on issues under research.
  • All manuscripts submitted to the editorial board are sent out to at least two reviewers for evaluation, leading experts in the field close to the subject matter of the presented material. The editor-in-chief of the journal appoints reviewers. By decision of the Editor-in-Chief of the journal (under certain circumstances) the appointment of reviewers may be entrusted to a member of the editorial board. In some cases, the issue of appointing reviewers is decided at a meeting of the editorial board.
  • To review articles, reviewers can be both members of the editorial board of the scientific journal and highly qualified specialists from other higher educational establishments of Ukraine who have deep professional knowledge and experience in specific scientific fields (namely music and theater), usually Doctors of Science, professors.
  • After receipt of the article for consideration (within 4 days), the reviewer evaluates the possibility of reviewing materials, based on the conformity of their own qualifications to the context of the author's research and the absence of any conflict of interest. If there is any conflict of interests, the reviewer may refuse to review the article and should inform the editorial board about it. The latter must decide on the appointment of another reviewer.
  • The reviewer takes a decision on the possibility of publishing the paper within 14 workdays. Reviewing terms can change in each special case, taking into account the creation of conditions for the most objective evaluation of the quality of the submitted materials, but will not exceed 1 calendar month.
  • Expert peer review is conducted according to the principle of “double-blind peer review” when neither the author nor the peer reviewers know about each other. The interaction between the author and the reviewers is carried out by the executive secretary via the personal account of the reviewer. At the request of the reviewer and under the consent of the working group of the editorial board, the interaction between the author and the reviewer can take place in the mode of direct personal contact (such a decision is made only in case when the interaction openness will allow the author to improve the style and logic of the statement of the research material).
  • After the final analysis of the article, the peer reviewer shall fill out a standard form (Review form) which includes final recommendations. The editorial staff sends the results of the review to the author by e-mail
  • If the reviewer points out the necessity of making certain corrective amendments in the manuscript, the article is sent back to the author with the offer to consider the remarks at the preparation of the updated version of the article or to submit well-reasoned refutation.  The remaks made by the reviewer could be as follows:
  • whether the content of the article corresponds to the topic stated in the title;;
  • whether the material presented for publication contains scientific novelty (originality);
  • relationship between the peer-reviewed material and the available literature as well as up-to-date research on relevant issues (taken into account, used, borrowed, compiled, etc.);
  • whether there are signs of incorrect borrowings or other forms of violation of the scientific ethics guidelines and academic virtue by the author when writing the material;
  • whether the practical significance of the material is revealed;
  • whether the material meets the requirements for the structure of publication, its language and style of presentation, applied terminology, the visibility of tables, diagrams, figures and formulas, the accuracy of the citation, references, etc.;
  • whether the peer-reviewed material represents an interest for the reader of the journal (if yes, what kind).

A revised article should be supplemented by a letter containing answers to all comments and explanations regarding all the changes that have been made to the article. The revised version is resent to the reviewer for making a decision and preparing a reasoned opinion on the possibility of publication. The date of acceptance of the article for publication is the date of receipt by the editors of the positive opinion of the reviewer (or the decision of the editorial board) on the feasibility and possibility of publishing the article.

  •  In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. In this case, the article is considered at a meeting of the working group of the editorial board. The editorial board may send the article for additional or new review to another specialist. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject articles in case of inability or unwillingness of the author to take into account the wishes and comments of reviewers. At the request of the reviewer, the editorial board may submit the article to another reviewer with mandatory adherence to the principles of double-blind review.
  • The final decision on the possibility and advisability of publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or on his/her behalf by a member of the editorial board), and if necessary by a meeting of the editorial board. After deciding on the acceptance of the article to publication, the executive secretary notifies the author and indicates the expected date of publication.
  • Upon acceptance of your paper, the article is sent to the editorial portfolio of the journal for publication in the order of priority and relevance (in some cases, by decision of the Editor-in-Chief, the article may be published out of turn in the next issue).
  • The final decision on the collection of the articles to be published is recorded in the minutes of the Academic Council of Kharkiv I.P. Kotlyarevsky National University of Arts. The corresponding mark is made on the second page of the journal cover.
  • Approved for publication, the article is provided to the technical editor. Minor corrections of a stylistic or formal nature that do not affect the content of the article are made by the technical editor without the consent of the author. If necessary or at the request of the author, the manuscript as a layout is returned to the author for approval.
  • The responsibility for copyright infringement and non-compliance with existing standards in the materials of the article rests with the author of the article. The responsibility for the accuracy of the facts and data, the validity of the conclusions, recommendations and scientific and practical level of the article rests with the author and reviewer.

Rights and responsibilities of peer-reviewers:
Reviewers provide a written review of the manuscript, at the end of which a conclusion is given on the possibility of publishing the article.
If the reviewer recommends the article for publication only after appropriate changes or does not recommend the article for publication, the review should indicate the reasons for this decision.
The reviewer must review the submitted article within the time frame agreed with the executive secretary, and send to the editorial office (by e-mail) a motivated refusal to review or a review.
Reviewers evaluate the theoretical and methodological level of the article, its practical value and scientific significance. In addition, reviewers determine the compliance of the article with the principles of ethics in scientific publications and give recommendations for eliminating cases of their violation.
Reviewers are informed that the manuscripts sent to them are the intellectual property of the authors and belong to the information that is not subject to disclosure.
Reviewers are prohibited from copying an article submitted for review or using information about the content of the article before its publication.
Reviewing is based on confidentiality, when information about the articles (timing, content, stages and features of reviewing, reviewers' comments and the final decision on publication) is not communicated to anyone but authors and reviewers. Violation of this requirement is possible only if there are signs or a statement of unreliability or falsification of the article materials.

Rights and responsibilities of authors:
The author of the peer-reviewed work is given the opportunity to read the text of the review, especially if they do not agree with the conclusions of the reviewer.
In case of disagreement with the opinion of the reviewer, the author of the article has the right to provide a reasoned answer to the editors of the journal. The article can be sent for re-review or for approval to the editorial board.
Articles sent to authors for correction must be returned to the editors no later than 2 weeks after receipt. If the article is returned at a later date, the date of its receipt for printing changes accordingly.
The author shall be notified by the Executive Secretary of the terms of publication of the article within no more than one month from the date of receipt of a positive opinion on the publication of the article.

 

 
© 2017-2022 "Aspects of Historical Musicology"