Review Policy
All materials submitted to the editorial office of the collection "SCIENTIFIC HERALD OF TCHAIKOVSKY NATIONAL MUSIC ACADEMY OF UKRAINE" undergo mandatory editorial screening and scholarly peer review prior to any publication decision. This process ensures the scientific quality of publications and their compliance with standards of academic integrity (see: Law of Ukraine “On Academic Integrity”https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4742-20#Text).
Initial Editorial Screening
Before a manuscript is sent for peer review, the editorial office conducts a preliminary assessment, verifying:
– the manuscript’s relevance to the thematic scope of the journal;
– compliance with formal submission and formatting requirements;
– the presence of all required structural elements of a scholarly article;
– the absence of evident signs of academic misconduct;
– the originality of the submission and absence of information about its simultaneous consideration by other journals.
The editorial office may return a manuscript to the author without external review if it falls outside the journal’s scope, fails to meet technical requirements, contains significant violations of academic standards, or has been submitted to or published in other venues.
Peer Review Process
The journal applies a double-blind peer review procedure. This means that:
– authors do not know the identity of the reviewers;
– reviewers are not provided with information about the authorship of the manuscript;
– the editorial office ensures anonymization of all materials sent for review.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.
Conflict of Interest Prevention
Reviewers are not selected if they:
– are in direct professional, institutional, or personal dependence on the author;
– have recently co-authored publications or projects with the author;
– have any other potential conflict of interest that could affect the objectivity of their evaluation.
If a real or potential conflict of interest arises, the reviewer must promptly inform the editorial office and decline the review.
Manuscript Evaluation Criteria
During the review process, the following aspects are assessed:
– relevance of the topic to the journal’s academic profile;
– timeliness and scientific originality of the research;
– theoretical and methodological soundness;
– logical structure and coherence of presentation;
– completeness of the literature review;
– validity and substantiation of conclusions;
– accuracy in the use of sources, citation, and bibliographic formatting;
– academic language, stylistic quality, and professional level of presentation.
For studies in art history, cultural studies, and the humanities, particular attention is also paid to the accuracy of interpretation of artistic phenomena, the quality of engagement with visual, musical, archival, and other cultural materials, and the appropriateness of the research methodology to the stated objectives.
Confidentiality and Ethical Principles of Peer Review
Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared with third parties or used by reviewers for their own research, publication, or other purposes without written permission from the editorial office.
Peer review must be conducted:
– impartially;
– conscientiously;
– with well-reasoned arguments;
– with respect toward the author;
– without discrimination based on institutional affiliation, academic status, citizenship, language, gender, religion, or political views.
If plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, authorship manipulation, or other violations of academic integrity are suspected, the reviewer must inform the editorial office (see “Publication Ethics” and “Plagiarism Policy”).
Review of Submissions by Editorial Board Members and Related Persons
If a submission is authored or co-authored by a member of the editorial board, editorial council, or another person involved in the journal’s management, it undergoes independent peer review on a general basis, without the involvement of the respective individual in the editorial decision-making process.
Editorial Decisions
Based on peer review and editorial evaluation, one of the following decisions may be made:
– accept for publication without revisions;
– accept for publication subject to minor revisions;
– reconsider after major revisions;
– reject the manuscript.
Author Revisions
If revisions are recommended, the manuscript is returned to the author along with reviewers’ comments and recommendations, to the extent that can be disclosed without compromising the confidentiality of the review process.
The author must submit a revised version within the timeframe established by the editorial office. If necessary, the revised manuscript may be sent for additional review by the same or other reviewers.
Failure to adequately address substantial editorial or reviewer comments may result in rejection of the manuscript.
If the author does not maintain communication with the editorial office, the submission will be rejected.
Review Timeline
In accordance with the journal’s current practice, publication decisions are typically made within up to two months after manuscript submission. However, the actual timeframe may vary depending on the manuscript’s subject area, the complexity of the review process, the timeliness of reviewers’ reports, and the extent of required revisions.
