Str. Ion I.C. Brătianu | 400079 Cluj-Napoca | România
slider 13.jpg
slider 01.jpg
slider 02.jpg
slider 12.jpg
slider 03.jpg
slider 04.jpg
slider 05.jpg
slider 06.jpg
slider 11.jpg
slider 10.jpg
slider 09.jpg
slider 08.jpg
slider 07.jpg
previous arrowprevious arrow
next arrownext arrow

Peer Review Procedure

The process of evaluating a scientific work at MediaMusica Publishing House is carried out on three levels:

  1. Editorial Evaluation
  2. Scientific Evaluation (Peer Review)
  3. Ethical Evaluation

MediaMusica Publishing House

MediaMusica Publishing House specializes in outstanding publications in the fields of musicology, composition, music criticism, ethnomusicology, music education, etc.

In this regard, publications of excellent scientific quality may be considered, suggesting a significant expansion of scientific knowledge or further development of research in the context of the MUSIC field, both nationally and internationally.

This orientation aims to emphasize the importance of science and research for society in connection with relevant social, cultural, and scientific issues, highlight the position of Romanian research in the national and international scientific information process, and strengthen international cooperation.

The general objectives of MediaMusica Publishing House include increasing publication visibility, greater dissemination of scientific results through improved readability, internationalization of research, and showcasing Romanian research results outside the Romanian language area.

By publishing works in internationally circulated languages, the publisher strives to make the results of research achievements known to the scientific community. Editing in foreign languages aims to improve quality and provide professional assistance in accordance with international academic standards.

MediaMusica Publishing House publishes independent scientific works in an appropriate form, considering cost-benefit ratios, to reach the widest possible audience.

  1. Editorial Evaluation

This represents the first stage of evaluation, where the proposed work for publication is assessed technically and administratively. The work is evaluated by the editor to check if it fits the specificity of the publishing house and if it can be edited and printed by MediaMusica Publishing House. Editors decide whether the manuscript should undergo peer review or be rejected immediately. If the reviewer recommends minor or major changes, then the manuscript must be revised accordingly and resubmitted for evaluation.

Later, reviewers will be selected who, due to their research field, can review the manuscript. Ideally, manuscripts are evaluated by two reviewers.

  1. Scientific Evaluation (Peer Review)

Scientific evaluation is carried out at MediaMusica Publishing House by evaluators randomly chosen from the publishing house's database. MediaMusica agrees with two types of scientific evaluation:

  • Blind Peer Review – a review process in which the reviewer knows the identity of the author, but the author does not know the identity of the reviewer. This process is suitable when a team of reviewers from various scientific or academic backgrounds is needed, especially when interdisciplinary material is submitted for evaluation.

  • Double Blind Peer Review – a review process in which the reviewer does not know the author's identity, and the reviewer's identity will not be disclosed to the author after the evaluation is complete.

Reviewers finalize the evaluation with at least one of the following ways:

  • Acceptance for publication.
  • Acceptance with modifications (minor or major).
  • Resubmission for evaluation after rewriting.
  • Rejection.

After the evaluation, the referees communicate their decision to the editorial office and, if necessary, the observations and requirements that must be met as a condition for publication. The author is obliged to take these recommendations into account and return the material with the necessary corrections. If rewriting of the material is required, the editor resends the text to the evaluators, who will perform a new review.

In case the two referees have different evaluations, the work will be sent to a third evaluator who will make the final decision.

If reviewers recommend modifications or rewriting, the publisher will send the author their recommendations and ask the author to make the recommended changes.

The minimum standards accepted by MediaMusica Publishing House – following the review, referees give scores, and the final result must fall as follows:

  • 75-100 points – acceptance for publication.
  • 50-75 points – acceptance with modifications (minor or major).
  • 25-50 points – resubmission for evaluation after rewriting.
  • 0-25 points – rejection.

The evaluation criteria agreed upon by MediaMusica Publishing House are as follows:

  • The way the content is reflected through the title formulation.
  • Originality and novelty of the addressed subject.
  • The degree of scientific/applicative relevance.
  • The value of perspectives and personal interpretations.
  • The organization of the text.
  • The quality of the approached methodology.
  • The correctness of scientific writing.
  • The quality of illustrative elements, tables, and examples.
  • The quality of writing, language, and expression.
  • The quality of bibliographic sources.

Each category will be scored by the evaluator from 1 to 10 points, and the reviewer will present only the final evaluation (not the interim score). Also, at the end of the evaluation form, the reviewer presents their personal opinion on the work, with comments and suggestions for improving the written material.

  1. Ethical Evaluation

MediaMusica Publishing House follows the rules of ethical research, aiming to avoid plagiarism. The publishing house has a 0% tolerance for plagiarism. To avoid ethical issues, the publishing house uses:

  • A contract of originality that clearly stipulates the consequences of plagiarism.
  • Each material is subjected to anti-plagiarism software, and the similarity index will be appreciated on a case-by-case basis, depending on the given report.
  • Informal consent from the interviewed individuals or those holding intellectual property rights to the materials.
  • A statement of personal responsibility from the author that they do not violate the image rights of individuals and do not use materials subject to copyright.