Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Yegah Musicology Journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity.
The journal adheres to the principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and applies these standards in cases of alleged misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship practices, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.
All parties involved in the publication process — authors, editors, and reviewers — are expected to comply with these ethical standards.
COPE Guidelines:
https://publicationethics.org/
Any suspected ethical misconduct is handled in accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, and appropriate measures are taken when necessary.
Duties of Editors
Editorial decisions are made independently of any financial considerations.
Manuscripts submitted to the journal are taken into the editorial preliminary evaluation and peer-review process without any fee being requested.
The Editorial Processing Charge (EPC) is intended to support publication-related services and is completely independent of editorial evaluation and peer-review reports.
This fee is paid by the author at a time deemed appropriate by the author and has no influence on editorial decisions, reviewer evaluations, or acceptance or rejection processes.
Editorial decisions are made independently based on the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance to the journal’s scope. The Editor-in-Chief has full responsibility for the journal’s editorial content and publication schedule.
Confidentiality
Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Editors will recuse themselves from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.
Publication decisions
All manuscripts considered for publication undergo double-blind peer review by at least two independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the final decision to publish, based on reviewers’ reports, the manuscript’s academic quality, and compliance with ethical and legal standards.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors will take appropriate measures when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted or published manuscript. Allegations of misconduct will be investigated following COPE flowcharts. If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions such as corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern will be issued.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and helps authors improve their manuscripts.
Promptness
Reviewers who feel unqualified or unable to review a manuscript promptly should inform the editors and decline the review invitation.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents and must not be shared or discussed with others without authorization.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively, with clear and constructive comments supported by academic reasoning. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work not cited by the authors and notify the editors of any suspected overlap or plagiarism.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline review when such conflicts exist.
Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors should present an accurate account of the research performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide raw data for editorial review. Where applicable, data should be retained and made accessible in accordance with ethical and legal requirements.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their submissions are original and properly cite the work of others. All forms of plagiarism are unacceptable.
Multiple, duplicate, or concurrent submission
Manuscripts must not be submitted to more than one journal simultaneously and must not have been previously published.
Authorship of the manuscript
Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, execution, or interpretation of the study. All listed authors must approve the final version of the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its interpretation.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of all sources and permissions is required.
Research involving human participants
Studies involving data collection from human participants (such as interviews, surveys, or observational research) must comply with applicable ethical standards and national regulations. Where required, approval from an ethics committee must be obtained and clearly stated in the manuscript.
Peer review cooperation
Authors must cooperate with the peer review process and respond to reviewers’ and editors’ comments in a timely and constructive manner.
Fundamental errors in published works
Authors must promptly notify the journal of significant errors discovered after publication and cooperate in issuing corrections or retractions where necessary.
Duties of the Publisher
Handling of unethical publishing behavior
In cases of suspected or confirmed misconduct, the publisher and editors will take appropriate steps to investigate and, if necessary, correct or retract the published work. Reasonable measures are taken to prevent the publication of unethical research practices.