Open search

DocMus Research Publications

|

DocMus Research Publications is a series of scholarly research publications by the Sibelius Academy since 2012

DocMus Research Publications is a series of scholarly research publications by the Sibelius Academy since 2012.

The publication series has implemented the label for peer-reviewed scholarly publications of the Federation of Finnish Learned Societies and is committed to follow the guidelines for the mark. More information available here. All manuscripts intended for publication in the DocMus Research Publications series (both monographs and anthologies) undergo peer review. Other pieces of writing, such as prefaces, will be dealt with by the editorial board and can be published without an external scholarly quality assessment. 

The editorial policy of the series follows the principles of the Academy of Finland, the peer-review guidelines of the Finnish Association for Scholarly Publishing (only in Finnish) and the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity’s (TENK) Responsible Conduct of Research guidelines.

ISSN 2341-8257 (printed); ISSN 2341-8265 (pdf)

Finnish Association for Scholarly Publishing
Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK)

Editorial Board

Professor Tuire Kuusi
DMus Peter Peitsalo
Professor Lauri Suurpää
Vice dean Juha Ojala
Professor Markus Mantere (Editor-in-Chief)
Contact: firstname.lastname (at) uniarts.fi

The peer-review process

– All publication proposals shall be dealt with by the editorial board. It will make an initial assessment of the suitability of the manuscript for the publication programme and decide on a case-by-case basis on starting a peer-review process. The Editor-in-Chief may, after consulting with the editorial board, reject the manuscript offered or ask the author to make amendments to the manuscript before the peer-review process is initiated.

– The Editor-in-Chief shall ask, after having heard the editorial board’s opinion, for statements about the manuscript’s suitability for publication from at least two persons invited to take part in the review process. The reviewers must be from outside the editorial staff and independent of the manuscript to be reviewed. Moreover, their qualifications should include a completed doctoral degree and professional experience in the academic field in question.

– When selecting an expert, a prior attempt is made to establish that the reviewer is not biased. The guidelines of the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Association for Scholarly Publishing, and TENK shall be followed in these verdicts. Finnish Association for Scholarly Publishing,

– Reviewers operate anonymously, but the editorial staff will archive the publication proposals, the statements,  and the names of the reviewers.

– In the process, the comprehensiveness of the text intended for publication is assessed as well as the management of the theoretical framework, the reliability and accuracy of the research process execution, and the newness of the results in relation to previous research in a way that is particular to the academic field in question. 

Each reviewer shall propose either rejecting the publication proposal, approving it as it is, or approving it with specified alterations. 

– Based on the statements provided, the Editor-in-Chief, together with the editorial board, makes a final decision on the publication of the manuscript under consideration.

– The authors are sent a notification about the acceptance or rejection of the publication proposal in addition to suggested changes related to the manuscript that may be required for its publication. At the same time, the authors are sent the reviewers’ statements or the Editor-in-Chief’s summary of these statements. 

In the case of individual articles, the peer-review process ideally takes a maximum of two months, but in the case of a monograph, the process may last longer.

Publications list

Buy DocMus Research Publications series from Ostinato
Buy DocMus Research Publications series from Unigrafia

DocMus Research Publication series’ Author Guidelines

Read the author guidelines

DocMus Research Publications instructions for reviewers

When taking on a peer-review task, the expert shall confirm that he or she understands and commits to the following principles:

  • The expert cannot act as a reviewer if he or she is biased. The guidelines of the Academy of Finland, the Finnish Association for Scholarly Publishing and TENK shall be followed in these verdicts.
  • All manuscripts to be reviewed constitute confidential material. They may not be discussed or shown to outside parties.
  • The content of an unpublished manuscript may not be used for the expert’s own benefit.

The purpose of an expert statement is to help the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board decide on the scholarly eligibility for publication of the manuscript under consideration and to help the author to improve the manuscript. Therefore, a copy of the statement or a summary of it is also sent to the author.

The expert writes a statement which expresses an opinion, with justification, of the merits and shortcomings of the manuscript with regard to its content, structure, possible illustrations, and other noteworthy aspects. A typical review statement is 2–6 pages, and it shall be sent to the Editor-in-Chief in accordance with the agreed-upon schedule. The expert is encouraged to employ the following scale in his or her assessment:

  • The manuscript can be published as it is.
  • The manuscript can be published with the small amendments proposed.
  • The manuscript can be approved if the significant amendments and alterations proposed are made. In this case, a second peer reviewing is required.
  • The manuscript is recommended for rejection (grounds).

The assessment is supported by answers to the following questions:

  • Are the research question, material, and methods presented in a comprehensible way and with a sufficient degree of precision?
  • Does the author know the sources and the literature of his or her subject area and does he or she make use of them sufficiently and reliably? If necessary, recommend new literature sources.
  • Observations about the structure and language of the text.
  • Does the author deliver on the promise he or she made in the introduction, and does the material support the conclusions?
  • What is the novelty of the results in comparison with earlier research?
  • What is the relationship between the possible illustrations and text of the manuscript? Are the images informative and necessary?

The expert statement is to be written in a constructive, encouraging and justified way, taking into account that the styles of writers are different and a plurality of voices is a part of research. If the expert considers the theoretical framework, research literature, source materials, or methods to be deficient, the expert should help the author with concrete suggestions to improve the manuscript.

The statement must show the possible overlap between the manuscript and previously published material as well as possible suspicions of plagiarism or shortcomings with regard to attribution of references or sources.