Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

Ethical Mission Statement

Eurasian music science journal is dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editors of the Journal, comprising the Editor-in-Chief, Senior Editor, Book Review Editor, Editorial Board, and other editorial staff affiliated with Eurasian music science journal.

Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and Eurasian music science journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors submitting articles to Eurasian music science journal affirm that manuscript contents are original and contain no fraudulent data. Furthermore, they warrant that their article has neither been published elsewhere in any language fully or partly, nor is it under review for publication anywhere else.

The following duties outlined for editors, authors, and reviewers are based on the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. Editors, authors, and reviewers will also adhere to the Eurasian music science journal Policies and Author Guidelines.

{ top }

Editorial Responsibilities

  1. Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief has complete responsibility accepting, rejecting, or requesting modifications to any submitted manuscript. S/he shall only do so in fair and impartial manner.
  2. Fair Play: The editors shall not use prejudice or bias of any kind against any author during the review process.
  3. Conflict of Interest: The editors shall not have any conflict of interest with respect to the article under consideration.
  4. Anonymity: Anonymity of reviewers as well as the author shall be maintained during the review process.
  5. Errors in Published Works: When an error is detected, the editors shall promote corrected publication or retraction.
  6. Certainty of Originality: Editors must make every effort to be reasonably certain that each manuscript is evaluated for originality, including but not limited to making use of at least two reviewers through the double-blind peer review process.

{ top }

Author Responsibilities

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors shall present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. All authors shall have significantly contributed to the body of research and literature.
  2. Originality: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work.
  3. References and Sources: Authors shall fully annotate all sources of data used in the research and cite publications, adhering to the Journal’s Author Guidelines. All citations must be real and authentic.
  4. Peer Review: Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process.
  5. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Authors shall not submit the same manuscript to more than one publication concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing the same research in more than one publication.
  6. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship shall be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. Authors may use acknowledgements to recognize those who have made other contributions to the manuscript. Authors must also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and the inclusion of their names as co-authors.
  7. Disclosure of Financial Support: Sources of financial support, if any, must be clearly disclosed.
  8. Errors in Published Works: All authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes, and any error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscripts must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief.

{ top }

Review process

The EAMSJ employs ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the reviewer remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the review process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

Peer review process take from 14-21 days. Based on the peer review results, the editor decides whether the article will be published in the journal or not. If the article receives permission to publish, then the author receives a notice of acceptance for publication. The terms of publication of the article take up to 30 days after notification of acceptance for publication.

The Editorial Board takes into consideration and reviewing the type of manuscripts described here.

Review processing is obligatory for all manuscripts submitted to the editors, regardless of the authors’ academic degrees, titles and official positions.

Review processing (peer review) is performed by members of the editorial board or reputable scholars-experts. The reviewers involved shall be holders of Ph.D. degrees, Doctors of Arts, Academicians, Professors and University lecturers of Higher Educational Establishments of Culture and Art.

The editorial board stipulates the objective process of reviewing and tracks the movement of the manuscript before putting into production.

Repeated review processing shall take place in the following cases:

– If the manuscript develops controversial issues which require juxtaposition of different points of view of the experts making the decision concerning its publication;

– If the author has submitted a drastically new version of the article in compliance with the critical remarks of the review within the designated time frame.

The review shall note: the scholarly significance of the chosen article, relevance of the subject, completeness of use of sources and literature, depth of their analysis, effectiveness of the chosen research methods, the degree of novelty of the work, validity of conclusions, practical and theoretical significance of researching.

9. The content of the review shall be communicated to the author(s) within 14-21 days after receipt of the reviews by the editorial board.

The review processing of materials submitted to EAMSJ remains confidential.

 All the reviewers are acknowledged specialists in the subject matter of the reviewed texts and have had publications on the subject matter of the reviewed article during the last 3 years.

The reviews are preserved in the publishers' and editors' office for 5 years.



Basic principles to which peer reviewers should adhere

Peer reviewers should:

  • only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner
  • respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer-review process, beyond those that are released by the journal
  • not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others
  • declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest
  • not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments
  • acknowledge that peer review is largely a reciprocal endeavor and undertake to carry out their fair share of reviewing and in a timely manner
  • provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise
  • recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct

Review Guidelines

  1. Standard of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts shall be objective and the reviewers shall express their views clearly with supporting arguments to the editors through the double-blind peer review process.
  2. Conflict of Interest: Reviewers shall not have any conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors, and/or the research funders. Reviewers shall not accept for review any manuscript for which there is a potential conflict of interest, and reviewers shall report to the Editor-in-Chief any issue that may result in a conflict of interest.
  3. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors shall be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. Manuscripts shall be retained by reviewers for the purpose of review for the publication consideration in the Eurasian music science journal> and shall not be retained or used for any other purpose.
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should point out relevant published work that is not yet cited. Reviewers must ensure that authors have fully referenced and cited all relevant sources of information used in their research.
  5. Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete a thorough and prompt review of the manuscript within the stipulated time (typically 14-21 days), then this information must be communicated to the editors so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.

Expectations during the peer-review process

On being approached to review

Peer reviewers should:

  • respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
  • declare if they do not have the subject expertise required to carry out the review or if they are able to assess only part of the manuscript, outlining clearly the areas for which they have the relevant expertise.
  • only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident, they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
  • declare any potentially conflicting or competing interests (which may, for example, be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious), seeking advice from the journal if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  • follow journals’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as

any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.

  • review afresh any manuscript they have previously reviewed for another journal as it may have changed between the two submissions and the journals’ criteria for evaluation and acceptance may be different.
  • ensure suggestions for alternative reviewers are based on suitability and not influenced by personal considerations or made with the intention of the manuscript receiving a specific outcome (either positive or negative).
  • not agree to review a manuscript just to gain sight of it with no intention of submitting a review.
  • decline to review if they feel unable to provide a fair and unbiased review.
  • decline to review if they have been involved with any of the work in the manuscript or its reporting.
  • decline to review if asked to review a manuscript that is very similar to one they have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.
  • decline to review if they have issues with the peer-review model used by a journal (e.g. it uses open review and releases the reviewers’ names to the authors) that would either affect their review or cause it to be invalidated because of their inability to comply with the journal’s review policies

During review

Peer reviewers should:

  • notify the journal immediately and seek advice if they discover either a conflicting interest that wasn’t apparent when they agreed to the review or anything that might prevent them providing a fair and unbiased review.
  • refrain from looking at the manuscript and associated material while awaiting instructions from a journal on issues that might cause the request to review to be rescinded.
  • read the manuscript, ancillary material (e.g. reviewer instructions, required ethics and policy statements, supplemental data files) and journal instructions thoroughly, getting back to the journal if anything is not clear and requesting any missing or incomplete items they need to carry out a full review.
  • notify the journal as soon as possible if they find they do not have the expertise to assess all aspects of the manuscript; they shouldn’t wait until submitting their review as this will unduly delay the review process.
  • not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript, including junior researchers they are mentoring, without first obtaining permission from the journal; the names of any individuals who have helped them with the review should be included with the returned review so that they are associated with the manuscript in the journal’s records and can also receive due credit for their efforts.
  • keep all manuscript and review details confidential.
  • contact the journal if circumstances arise that will prevent them from submitting a timely review, providing an accurate estimate of the time they will need to do a review if still asked to do so.
  • in the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  • notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  • not intentionally prolong the review process, either by delaying the submission of their review or by requesting unnecessary additional information from the journal or author.
  • ensure their review is based on the merits of the work and not influenced, either positively or negatively, by any personal, financial, or other conflicting considerations or by intellectual biases.
  • not contact the authors directly without the permission of the journal.

When preparing the report

Peer reviewers should:

  • bear in mind that the editor is looking to them for subject knowledge, good judgement, and an honest and fair assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript.
  • make clear at the start of their review if they have been asked to address only specific parts or aspects of a manuscript and indicate which these are.
  • follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to, the way this should be organized.
  • be objective and constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript.
  • not make derogatory personal comments or unfounded accusations.
  • be specific in their criticisms, and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, ‘this work has been done before’, to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
  • remember it is the authors’ paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
  • be aware of the sensitivities surrounding language issues that are due to the authors writing in a language that is not their own, and phrase the feedback appropriately and with due respect.
  • make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
  • not prepare their report in such a way or include comments that suggest the review has been done by another person.
  • not prepare their report in a way that reflects badly or unfairly on another person.
  • not make unfair negative comments or include unjustified criticisms of any competitors’ work that is mentioned in the manuscript.
  • ensure their comments and recommendations for the editor are consistent with their report for the authors; most feedback should be put in the report for the authors.
  • confidential comments to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.
  • not suggest that authors include citations to the reviewer’s (or their associates’) work merely to increase the reviewer’s (or their associates’) citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates’ work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
  • determine whether the journal allows them to sign their reviews and, if it does, decide as they feel comfortable doing.
  • if they are the editor handling a manuscript and decide themselves to provide a review of that manuscript, do this transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous review if the journal operates blind review; providing a review for a manuscript being handled by another editor at the journal can be treated as any other review.


Expectations post review

Peer reviewers should:

  • continue to keep details of the manuscript and its review confidential.
  • respond promptly if contacted by a journal about matters related to their review of a manuscript and provide the information required.
  • contact the journal if anything relevant comes to light after they have submitted their review that might affect their original feedback and recommendations.
  • read the reviews from the other reviewers, if these are provided by the journal, to improve their own understanding of the topic or the decision reached.
  • try to accommodate requests from journals to review revisions or resubmissions of manuscripts they have reviewed.

 In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete a thorough and prompt review of the manuscript within the stipulated time (typically 14-21 days), then this information must be communicated to the editors so that the manuscript can be sent to another reviewer.

{ top }

Ethical Publishing

  1. Safeguarding ethics: The monitoring and safeguarding of publishing ethics will be maintained by the editors of the Eurasian music science journal.
  2. Retracting articles: Eurasian music science journal is always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies as appropriate and when needed in accordance with Eurasian music science journal ethical guidelines.
  3. Integrity of the academic record: The editors of Eurasian music science journal shall maintain the highest levels of intellectual and ethical standards, without the interference of business needs.
  4. No plagiarism, no fraudulent data: Eurasian music science journal is committed to only publishing manuscripts that are free from any plagiarism and that contain no fraudulent data. Unethical publication practices are not tolerated by the Eurasian music science journal.

{ top }

Updated 09.07.2022