Peer Review Procedure

The peer review procedure in the journal Edukacja Muzyczna complies with the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and follows the principles of good practice in scholarly publishing.

Description of the Peer Review Process

Plagiarism Screening

All submitted manuscripts are subject to plagiarism screening prior to editorial assessment and peer review, using the Plagiat.pl system.

In cases where significant irregularities are detected (such as plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or improper citation practices), the manuscript may be rejected at the initial stage or returned to the author for clarification.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment (Desk Review)

Submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial evaluation. At this stage, a manuscript may be rejected if it:

• falls outside the scope of the journal,
• does not meet formal or editorial requirements,
• lacks originality or scholarly value,
• violates publication ethics principles.

The editorial office may introduce linguistic and editorial corrections in consultation with the author.

2. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned an identification code and submitted to at least two independent reviewers.

The journal applies a double-blind peer review process, in which:

• authors do not know the identity of reviewers,
• reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

Reviewers are independent experts in the relevant field and hold at least a doctoral degree or an equivalent qualification.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must not have any conflicts of interest with the author. A conflict of interest is understood in particular as:

• personal relationships (kinship, legal relationships),
• professional or hierarchical dependencies,
• recent scientific collaboration.

Reviewers are required to submit a declaration confirming the absence of conflicts of interest prior to the review process.

4. Form of Review

Reviews are prepared in written form and include:

• a substantive evaluation of the manuscript,
• detailed comments and recommendations,
• a clear final recommendation regarding publication.

5. Review Outcomes

Reviewers recommend one of the following decisions:

• accept without revision,
• accept with minor revisions,
• accept with major revisions,
• resubmit for review after revisions,
• reject.

In the case of divergent reviews, the editorial office may appoint an additional reviewer.

6. Editorial Decision

The final decision on acceptance for publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviewers’ reports and editorial assessment.

7. Archiving and Confidentiality

All reviews are archived by the editorial office.
The peer review process is confidential, and all materials are treated as confidential. 

Model review form to download:     pdf>>   docx>>