Manuscript review and peer review process

After submission, the manuscript goes through the following stages of review:

• Received by the editorial office – the manuscript has been sent to the journal’s email address.
• Accepted for review – the manuscript has been registered and assigned a registration number.
• Initial editorial evaluation – checking compliance with the journal’s profile, formal requirements and basic ethical requirements; early rejection is possible.
• Plagiarism check – text analysis using software (in particular, Turnitin).
• Sent for review – the manuscript has been submitted to two independent reviewers (double-blind review).
• Reviews received – review completed, results sent to the author.
• Needs revision – the author makes changes taking into account the comments of the reviewers/editorial staff.
• Passed double-blind review – all comments have been taken into account or justified.
• Accepted for publication – the final editorial decision has been made.
• In the issue plan – the article is included in the editorial portfolio and is scheduled for publication in a specific issue.

Manuscript review procedure

Initial selection and verification
The responsible secretary registers the article, assigns a registration number and checks compliance with the journal profile, compliance with formal requirements for design, and compliance with basic ethical norms.

• Manuscripts that do not meet the journal requirements may be rejected at this stage without being sent for review; the author receives a corresponding notification.
• All manuscripts accepted for further consideration are checked for illegal borrowings using the Turnitin software .
• All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo double-blind peer review. Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers, and reviewers do not know the identities of the authors.

The purpose of peer review is to improve the quality of scientific publications through the evaluation of materials by highly qualified experts, ensuring a balance of interests of authors, readers, reviewers, the editorial board and the institutions where the research was performed.

Appointment of reviewers
Each manuscript is sent to two independent reviewers according to the research profile.
Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief or, on his behalf, by a member of the editorial board; if necessary, this issue is considered at a meeting of the editorial board.
The following experts are involved in the review:

• Editorial board members;
• External experts (usually doctors of science, professors in the field of music and related fields).
• All reviewers must comply with the requirements for ethics in scientific publications of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and be objective and impartial. Within 4 days from the moment of receiving the request, the reviewer confirms his willingness to review; or refuses if the topic does not meet his qualifications or there is a conflict of interest.

Terms and form of review
The standard review period is up to 14 days from the moment of acceptance of the manuscript by the reviewer. If necessary, the period may be extended, but in general does not exceed one month.
The review is in written form (standard form), contains:

• a brief description of the article;
• an analysis of novelty and originality;
• an assessment of the methodology;
• comments on the structure, logic, and correctness of the conclusions;
• comments on the design, references, and sources;
• a final recommendation (decision).

Each reviewer formulates one of the recommendations:

• accept for publication without changes;
• accept after minor revision (without re-review);
• recommend revision with re-review;
• reject the article.

The article can be accepted for publication only if there are two positive conclusions (taking into account possible requirements for revision).

Interaction with authors
The review results are sent to the author by e-mail (excerpts from the reviews without disclosing the reviewers' identities). If revisions are necessary, the author is usually given up to 2 weeks to make changes or prepare reasoned responses.
The author adds a response letter to the revised article, explaining in detail how the comments of the reviewers/editors have been taken into account.
The updated manuscript may be re-sent to one or both reviewers.

Appeal
The author has the right to disagree with the conclusions of the reviewer(s) and submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office.
The editorial office may confirm the previous decision; send the manuscript for additional/new review to an independent expert. The final decision on publication or rejection is made by the Editor-in-Chief (or, on his behalf, a member of the editorial board) and, if necessary, the editorial board.

Confidentiality Statement
Perwsonal data specified by authors will be used exclusively for the internal technical tasks of this journal; they will not be distributed or transferred to third parties. Manuscript review is confidential. By submitting a manuscript for review, 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 the manuscript review violates the author's rights. Editors do not disclose information related to the manuscript (including information about its receipt, content, review process, critical comments of reviewers and the final decision) to anyone except the authors and reviewers themselves. Violation of confidentiality is possible only in the case of a statement about the unreliability or falsification of materials, in all other cases its preservation is mandatory.