Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The journal invites original, significant, and rigorous inquiry into all subjects within or across disciplines related to music creation, music studios, and ethnomusicology. It encourages debate and cross-disciplinary exchange across a broad range of approaches. The spectrum of topics include:
  1. Review of Nusantara Music
  2. Sociology of Music
  3. Anthropology of Music 
  4. World Music Culture
  5. Digital Music Studies
  6. Archaeology of Music
  7. Intercultural Studies of Music
  8. Ethnography of Music
  9. Music and Multicultural Education
  10. Music Criticism
  11. Musician Profile and Thought
  12. Artistic Review of the Music Creation Process

 

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

At least two reviewers will review each article according to the scope of the journal. The review process is carried out by the Double-Blind Peer Review Process. The time allotted for the review process is one week starting from the article sent to the reviewer. The editorial team will determine whether the item is accepted or not based on the review results from reviewers. Authors who wish to submit manuscript publications are expected to pay attention to the following rules:

  1. This article is not plagiarism from other people's work.
  2. The report submitted has never been published and has not been considered for publication in another journal.
  3. Articles must be sent according to the SORAI template.

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published two times a year (July, December)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Section A: Publication and authorship

  • All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular article.
  • The review process is a blind peer review. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  • The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  • If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised bid will be accepted.
  • Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  • No research can be included in more than one publication.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  • Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors must participate in the peer-review process.
  • Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  • All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  • Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  • Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  • Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  • Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  • Reviewers should also call to the Editor