Music Journal of Northern Europe

Peer Review Regulations on Scientific Manuscripts

General Regulations

The procedure of peer review of papers, submitted to the Editorial Board of the online academic "Music Journal of Northern Europe", is aimed at securing the quality of the scholarly articles published in the Journal within the realm of Music Studies.

All papers, submitted to the Editorial Board for publishing, undergo peer review (peer review of papers written by doctorate degree holders is applied on an individual basis). The papers of doctorate degree seekers are peer reviewed by doctorate degree holders; the papers of postgraduate students are peer reviewed by Doctors and/or Candidates of Sciences whose scientific activity is relevant to the papers' subject matter. Specialists, who have the same place of employment as the author of the paper, cannot be engaged in peer reviewing.

International academic community has developed several types of peer review. "Music Journal of Northern Europe" applies the so-called "double-blind" peer review when the reviewer and the author are unfamiliar to one another.
Upon receiving a manuscript the Editorial Board shall inform its author about the peer review procedure. The review shall be conducted confidentially. The Editorial Board shall not reveal the peer reviewers' surname, name, middle name, nor their place of employment. The peer reviewers shall be informed that the submitted manuscripts are the authors' intellectual property and they cannot be subject to disclosure. Breaking confidentiality is possible only in the case where the peer reviewer states that the information, contained in the paper, is falsified or unreliable.

The articles shall be peer reviewed within the period of up to three weeks upon receipt of manuscripts.

Peer Review Sequence

All submitted manuscripts are registered and considered by the Executive Secretary in relation to their accordance with the journal's scope and typography requirements. Then, the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief considers the manuscript and makes a decision to forward it to one of the Editorial Board members.

After the Editor-in-Chief's approval of the candidate for the peer review the Executive Secretary by agreement with the reviewer sends to the latter the article either in printed or electronic format (by e-mail) and a cover letter.
The reviewer presents the peer review at his/her discretion either in a free form or in that of proposed by the Editorial Board. The text of the review is presented both in printed and electronic formats. The original of the review (in two copies) is presented to the Editorial Board along with the certified signature and the stamp of the institution (from the reviewer's place of employment) and is sent to the address:

Editor-in-Chief S.V. Kosyreva, Leningradskaya street, 16, Petrozavodsk, 185031, with notice:

To the editorial office of the online academic "Music Journal of Northern Europe"

The content of the peer review is considered by the Editorial Board and they make one of the following decisions:

to accept for publication without any corrections;
to send the article for additional review;
to return the article to its author in order to correct it according to the reviewer's remarks;
to reject the article (explanation is obligatory).

The Editorial Board informs the author about the peer review results by e-mail. The peer review is provided for the author(s) in printed form or by e-mail with a Message Disposition Notification. The author(s) confirms the receipt of the peer review to indicate that they have been acquainted with it.

If the peer review contains an indication that the article is to be corrected, the article is forwarded to its author for correction (in this case the submission date is the one when the author submits the revised article). If the article has undergone significant revision following the reviewer's recommendation, it is forwarded for the second peer review carried out by the same reviewer who made remarks. The article, forwarded to the author for revision, should be returned revised within a month (the author's letter, containing answers to all remarks and explaining all changes made in the article, should be attached to the revised manuscript).

The Editorial Board has a right to reject an article in case its author is unable or reluctant to take into account the Editorial Board's recommendations. If there are negative peer reviews of the manuscript from two different reviewers or a single negative peer review of its revised version the article is rejected without consideration by other Editorial Board members.

The author is fully responsible for the scholarly content of the article and data accuracy cited in the References.

It is the Editorial Board's right to edit submitted articles.

Peer review content

The peer review can be written in a free form but it should contain the assessment of the following:

relevance between the contents of the article and the journal's scope;
significance of the problems considered in the article;
relevance between the presented findings and the article's subject matter;
significance of the research findings (scholarly and practical);
the presence of bibliography and references to it in the text;
scholarly contribution of the author(s): presence and significance of new scholarly results obtained personally by the author (or group of authors)
validity of conclusions;
proper use of terminology, clarity, academic writing style;
completeness and clarity of the presented graphs, charts and music sheets.

All comments for ease of considering them by the Editorial Board and the author(s) are grouped by items.

The peer review should be concluded with the recommendation either to publish the article without any alterations to be made, or publish it in case the author takes into account the suggested corrections to be made (with or without an additional peer review), or reject the author(s) for publication.

The Editorial Board considers the final decision whether to publish an article taking into account the received peer review(s) and the author's explanatory response.

Peer review originals are deposited in the editorial board for five years starting from the date when the article is published. They are provided for Higher Attestation Commission expert councils upon request.

Requirements for a peer review in the Russian language

Peer Review

of the article "Article's Title", presented for publication in the online academic "Music Journal of Northern Europe"

Brief justification for significance of the issue.
Brief description of the article's issue.
Novelty and significance of the presented material.
Recommendation to publish: the article "Article's Title" complies with all the requirements imposed on works of such type. The article is recommended for publication.

The peer reviewer's name, patronymic, surname, academic title, job title and place of employment.

Requirements for a peer review in a foreign language

Peer Review

of the article "Article's Title" in Russian and a foreign language transcription, presented for publication in the online academic "Music Journal of Northern Europe"

Further in Russian

Brief justification for significance of the issue.
Brief description of the article's issue.
Novelty and significance of the presented material.
Recommendation to publish: the article "Article's Title" complies with all the requirements imposed on works of such type. The article is recommended for publication.

The text of the article is translated by its author, professional translator, prepared in collaboration with a foreign colleague etc. (specify).

The reviewer is fluent in this language (English, for instance) or the reviewer is provided with a Russian version of the article in order to prepare a review (specify).

The reviewer's name, middle name, surname, academic title, job title and place of employment.