Editorial Policies

Section Policies

Статті

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Art studies

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

General guidelines

1. This guidelines refers to the procedure for reviewing the articles submitted for publication in the scientific journal «Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine». All materials submitted to the journal «Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine» shall be registered with the secretary of the journal. After submission, the received date should be stated on the paper. The Chief Editor of the journal will make one of the following decisions: accept outright (specifying the publication date) / request a revision / reject outright and inform authors to revise the manuscript no later than 60 days from the received date.

The procedure for reviewing articles

2. Once submitted, all materials (articles, bibliographical and dissertation reviews, etc.) will be assigned to Chief Editor of the journal, who will read the paper and decide whether it is appropriate for the journal and meets the following requirements: article’s title should reflect its content clearly; article should not extend beyond the imposed limits on length; appropriate structure; format, keywords and abstracts for review in Ukrainian, Russian and English; references; digital data, formulas, calculations, etc.; contact information; authors must provide a consent form expressing their agreement for publication in the journal, etc. Also, the Chief Editor of the journal will check for plagiarism, i.e. passing off another’s works, illustrations, tables etc. as article’s authors. The initial assessment should not take more than 30 days from the received date. Should the article be rejected after initial assessment, a notice will be sent to authors in writing.

3. After submission, all materials must be forwarded to be evaluated and commented upon by a number of independent experts (at least, two experts) within the same field of research, who hold scientific degrees (PhD, Doctor of Art Studies, etc.), awarded by the leading Ukrainian academies and universities, or the foreign equivalents of the scientific degrees, awarded by the leading foreign universities.

4. During revision, some Doctors’ articles invited to the publication can be exempted from review and also the articles may be re-revised or undergo an additional revision by either original or new experts, including the cases where authors were invited to submit a revised manuscript, at the Chief Editor of the journal discretion.

5. Should there be no conflict of interest between authors and referees (such as shared affiliations, supervisory or co-author relationship, etc.), referees may be any academic or professional researchers working in the field, including members of the Editorial Boards of the journal.

6. Under review the name and identity of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers. The reviewer's name and identity are not disclosed to the author, unless otherwise stated with a reviewer in writing.

7. After review, normally mediated by the Editorial Board of the journal, the referees may request changes and suggest improvements to the manuscript, and authors will be sent an author’s section of the review with a consolidated list of specific concerns to prepare a revision and if suitable it will then be accepted for publication.

8. Peer review promotes the decision-making process by the Chief Editor of the journal to accept, reject or request a revision of submitted materials.

9. Peer review aims at improving the quality of the published papers in particular and publishing portfolio in whole by requesting a minor or major revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific and significant concerns of the reviewers.

10.After review, the reviewer will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept outright;
  • Accept, but request a minor revision at authors’ discretion;
  • Request a minor or major revision, where authors revise their manuscript to address specific and significant concerns;
  • Reject outright with a right for submission of a revised manuscript;
  • Reject outright without being entitled to resubmit.

11.The Editorial Board of the journal specifies the manuscript publication criteria.

12.During peer review, reviewers will accurately and properly access the manuscript as follows:

  • To disclose and evaluate relation between the content and the title of the article;
  • To evaluate the content for scientific value and originality;
  • To evaluate the content for information value and originality;
  • To disclose relation between the submitted article and literature, publications and up-to-date research in the field;
  • To reveal if the article meets all applicable standards of ethics and does not constitute scientific misconduct and breach of publishing ethics;
  • To evaluate the content for practical use;
  • To evaluate the content for clear and unambiguous style of writing: the results and conclusions should reflect the findings clearly; the article should meet the general and particular format, language and style requirements; the article uses clear and illegible terminology, tables, diagrams, figures and formulas, footnotes, references, etc.;
  • To evaluate the content for how it entices the audience to read.

13.Designed by the Editorial Board of the journal, the standard peer report aims to answer ‘yes/no’ questions and provide a detailed and in-depth account to assess the paper’s suitability for publication in the journal, peer review deadline and terms and conditions, rules of confidentiality, etc.

14.The Editorial Board of the journal must protect the confidentiality of the review process with respect to all information involved with a manuscript. The referee must confirm in writing the acceptance of responsibility for keeping undisclosed the reviewed work and its content, as well as whatever facts be disclosed to him related to the author, etc. Discussion of a reviewed article with third parties is not allowed. Before publication, the referee is not permitted to use or refer to the material under consideration.

15.A positive review report is in itself not sufficient for the article to be accepted for publication. The final decision on publication rests with the Editorial Board of the journal and is recorded in the minutes of the Editorial Board sessions.

16.Originals of review reports are kept by the Editorial Board of the «Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine» for a period of 3 years from the publication date or the date of the decision to reject the manuscript.

 

Editorial Ethics Statement

General guidelines

Publishing ethics policy of the Journal is the code of conduct and guidelines which should be followed by all participants of the academic publication process, including authors, peer reviewers, editors, publishers, distributors, and readers.

The Editorial Board abides by the copyright law and anti-plagiarism regulations of Ukraine as well as the set of the ethical principles shared by the community of academic publishers; Editorial Board is responsible for publishing and disseminating manuscripts.

Publishing ethics policy of Scientific herald of Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine follows the guidelines designed by the international Committee on Publication Ethics (СОРЕ).

Ethical guidelines for Editorial Board and Publisher

The editorial board (Chief Editor) should comply with the legislation of Ukraine regarding copyright, plagiarism, and ethical principles, maintained by leading publishers of scientific periodicals. The board is responsible for publishing authors’ works in accordance with fundamental principles of:

  • urgency and originality of research;
  • authenticity of results and scientific importance of the work performed;
  • recognition of contribution of other researchers to investigations in the field of study and the mandatory presentation of appropriate references to the publications used;
  • inclusion of all participants that contributed substantially to the research performed among the list of co-authors and approval by all co-authors of the work submitted for publication;
  • correcting in a timely fashion errors and inaccuracies detected by the author or noticed by the editorial staff.

Unpublished data obtained from submitted manuscripts must not be used or transferred to any third parties without the written consent of the author(s). Information or ideas obtained in the course of editing must remain confidential.

The Chief Editor must not allow publication of material if there is a reason to believe that it has been plagiarized or contains materials banned from publication. Both the Chief Editor and the publisher are responsible for answering complaints concerning manuscripts under consideration or other unpublished materials. If a conflict is found, they must take all necessary measures to restore any rights that were violated.

Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers

A reviewer performs a peer review of an author's materials. His or her activities must be of an unbiased nature and in compliance with the following principles:

  • a manuscript received for reviewing must be accepted as a confidential document and should not be passed to third parties for examination or discussion without consent of the editorial staff;
  • a reviewer should evaluate the research results impartially and with sound reasoning. To criticize the author personally is inadmissible;
  • unpublished data obtained from the submitted manuscripts must not be used by the reviewer for private advantage;
  • if a reviewer thinks that his qualifications are insufficient for evaluating a manuscript, or that he cannot be impartial (e.g., in the case of conflict of interests), he should inform the Chief Editor, with a request to exclude him from the process of reviewing that manuscript.

Ethical guidelines for authors

An author (or a group of authors) is personally liable for originality and accuracy of research results and must adhere to the following principles:

  • the authors of the paper should present reliable results of conducted research. Deliberately erroneous or false statements are inadmissible;
  • the authors should guarantee the originality of research results set forth in the submitted manuscript. Borrowed fragments or statements must be include indication of the original author and source. Excessive adaptations, as well as plagiarism in any form, including improper citations, paraphrasing or violation of copyright, of the results of the research of others are unethical and therefore unacceptable;
  • references to publications that were important in conducting the research should be noted;
  • the authors should not submit a manuscript that has been sent to another journal simultaneously or that is also under consideration, or a paper already published elsewhere;
  • all individuals who contributed to the research should be indicated as co- authors. Persons who took no part in the research are not allowed to be included as co-authors;
  • if significant errors or inaccuracies are found in the paper by the author at the stage of its consideration or after its publication, the author must inform the editorial staff of the journal as soon as possible.