Ethical Principles and Publication Policy
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Yegah Musicology Journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. Authors, reviewers and editors are expected to follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour contained therein. A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to the two documents listed above for complete details.

Duties of Editors
Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. The policies of governments or other agencies outside the journal itself do not determine decisions to edit and publish. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.

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Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used to their advantage. Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers; instead, they will ask another editorial board member to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer review by at least two expert reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if discovered years after publication. Yegah editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on the investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is essential to formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. Yegah shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process must do a fair share of reviewing.

Promptness
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief (who would only do so under exceptional and specific circumstances). This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them to improve the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.

Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the appropriate citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other (published or unpublished) they have personal knowledge of.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for the reviewer’s advantage. This also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Duties of Authors
Reporting standards
Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' or perspective pieces should be identified. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.

Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data centre), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written and submitted only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be mentioned. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication
Papers describing the same research should not be published in multiple journals or primary publications. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript already published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.

Publishing some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines and translations) in multiple journals is sometimes justifiable, provided that certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The direct reference must be cited in the secondary publication.

Authorship of the manuscript
Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. All persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, and general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author but should be acknowledged in the "Acknowledgements" section after their written permission to be named as been obtained. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed (including the grant number or other reference number, if any).

Acknowledgement of sources
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.

Hazards and human or animal subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment with any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must identify these in the manuscript. Suppose the work consists of the use of animals or human participants. In that case, the authors should ensure that all procedures comply with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a message in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.
Peer review
Authors must participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, patient consent and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of "revisions necessary", authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline.

Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, they must promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to correct the paper as an erratum or retract it. Suppose the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy. In that case, the authors must promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the article.

Duties of the Publisher
Handling of unethical publishing behaviour
In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The publisher and the editors shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred and under no circumstances encourage or knowingly allow such misconduct to occur.

Article Processing Charge
All articles published in Yegah Musicology Journal are open-access and available online immediately upon publication. This is made possible by an article-processing charge (APC) that covers the range of publishing services we provide. This includes the online tools for editors and authors, reviewers, editors and reviewers progress payments, article copyediting, production and hosting, layout editing, liaison with abstracting and indexing services, and customer services.

As a matter of ethics, Article Processing Charge is paid when the author uploads the article to the journal management system. No editorial evaluation and review process is initiated without payment. This payment does not indicate that the article uploaded by the author will undoubtedly be published. This payment is only related to the article processing process.

As per the resolution passed by Turkish Higher Education Council at the General Assembly dated March 03, 2019, an article published in Yegah Musicology Journal can be included in the applications (declaration) for associate professorship since the journal falls under the clause of "Journals that charge fees -regardless of acceptance/rejection condition- during application".

"According to the decision taken by the Turkish Higher Education Council in the General Assembly dated 07.03.2019, an article published in the YegahJournal can be used in the applications for associate professorship (declaration) since the article meets the article - journals that receive a fee regardless of the acceptance/rejection decision at the time of application."

Article Processing Charge 112$.

Note: YMD reserves the right to offer discounts or no fees (APC) for particular articles or authors.

Article Publication Charge
Yegah Musicology Journal does not charge article publishing fees.

The subject of Changes Made/To be Made in the Journal:

YMD management; when it deems necessary, may change the services offered on the site and the terms of this contract wholly or partially. Changes will be effective from the date of publication on the site. It is the User's responsibility to follow the changes. The User is deemed to have accepted these changes by continuing to benefit from the services offered.