1. Review Method and Confidentiality (Double-Blind Peer Review)

• Our journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review system to ensure maximum scientific objectivity.
• All metadata and information that could reveal the authors' identities are removed from the manuscript before it is sent to reviewers. Reviewer identities are kept confidential through the DergiPark system throughout and after the process.

2. Preliminary Review and Ethical Screening

• Secretariat Review: Submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary technical screening by the secretariat regarding template compliance and ethical requirements (e.g., Ethics Committee Approval).
• Mandatory Documentation: Authors are required to submit approximately nine formal documents, including Author Contribution Forms, Ethical Declarations, and the Indexing Responsibility Agreement.
• Plagiarism Detection: Manuscripts that pass the technical stage are screened using iThenticate, Turnitin, or intihal.net. Similarity reports are evaluated strictly by the Editorial Board.

3. Reviewer Selection Criteria

• Reviewer Pool: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise from the DergiPark database, ResearchGate, LinkedIn, and the Council of Higher Education (YÖK) Academic profile system.
• Institutional Independence: A strict "External Reviewer Policy" is implemented; reviewers and authors must not be affiliated with the same institution.
• Specialized Expertise: Manuscripts involving musical analysis, notation, or audio file interpretations are assigned to experts with proven technical proficiency in those specific sub-fields of musicology.

4. Evaluation Process and Decision-Making

• Decision Algorithm: Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two reviewers. Two "Rejections" result in a summary rejection. In the case of conflicting reports (one "Acceptance," one "Rejection"), a third reviewer is appointed. A final decision for publication requires at least two "Acceptance" votes following revisions.
• Final Authority: Reviewer reports serve as scientific guides; however, the final authority regarding publication rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

5. Evaluation Criteria for Reviewers

• Validity Requirement: Reports that lack substantive feedback or provide "direct acceptance/rejection" without scientific justification are deemed invalid. Reviewers are expected to provide detailed annotations within the manuscript and complete the structured online evaluation form.

6. Ethical Principle: Conflict of Interest

• The journal ensures that no conflict of interest (such as academic hierarchy or prior collaboration) exists between authors and reviewers. By accepting the invitation to review, experts declare that there are no such conflicts.

7. Indexing and Financial Liability Disclaimer

• Indexing Responsibility: The inclusion or coverage of the Yegah Journal of Musicology in any national or international databases (e.g., Scopus, EBSCO, TR Dizin) is solely at the discretion of the respective indexing organizations. The journal management holds no legal or academic liability if a manuscript is published and the journal is subsequently removed from an index or changes its indexing status.
• Refund Policy: Fees collected for manuscripts approved for the publication process cover operational costs, including typesetting, secretariat services, DOI management, and administrative overhead. Consequently, no refunds shall be issued based on changes in indexing status or other external factors. Authors are deemed to have accepted these terms upon submission.