Thank you for choosing to submit your paper to RAST. These instructions will provide we have everything required so your paper can keep going through peer review, production and publication smoothly. Please take the time to read and follow them as closely as possible, as doing so will ensure your paper matches the RAST’s requirements.
Rast Musicology Journal uses OJS to peer review manuscript submissions. Complete guidelines for preparing and submitting your manuscript to this journal are provided below.
Rast Musicology Journal (Rast) is a regional refereed journal which draws its contributions from a wide community of researchers. The main focus of the Rast is firmly the analysis of Turkish music including Turkic world, eastern and Islamic civilization. Please see the journal's Aims & Scope for information about its focus and peer-review policy. Back to top
Please note that this journal publishes manuscripts in English and Turkish. Article Titles and Article Abstracts are both in English and Turkish. Extended abstract in English should be written for articles written in Turkish (Türkçe Yazım Klavuzu İçin Tıklayınız).
Rast Musicology Journal accepts the following types of article: original research articles, reviews articles and book reviews.
It is the purpose of Rast Musicology Journal to publish original articles representing a wide range of approaches to the study of music, including historical and archival studies, theory and analysis, anthropology of music, interdisciplinary explorations, critical and interpretive essays, and reports and reflections on Turkish music including Turkic world, eastern and Islamic civilization. Back to top
All research articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two anonymous referees. Back to top
RAST is committed to peer-review integrity and upholding the highest standards of review. Once your paper has been assessed for suitability by the editor, it will then be double-blind peer-reviewed by anonymous expert referees. Find out more about what to expect during peer review and read our guidance on publishing ethics. Back to top
Step 1: Editor assessment
Peer review follows a number of stages, beginning with submitting your article to a journal. At this first stage, the journal editor will decide if it’s suitable for the journal, asking questions such as:
Has the author followed the journal’s guidelines?
Is this the right journal for this article?
Will the journal’s readers find it interesting and useful?
The editor might reject the article immediately, but otherwise, it will move to the next stage, and into peer review.
Step 2: Peer review
The editor will find and contact two or three other researchers or academics who are experts in your field. They will be asked to read your article and advise the editor whether to publish your paper in that journal.
So what are they looking for? This depends on the subject area, but they will be checking:
your work is original or new;
your study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you’ve done;
you’ve presented your results clearly and appropriately;
your conclusions are reliable and significant;
the work is of a high enough standard to be published in the journal. Back to top
- Before you submit, make sure:
- You’ve read the journal’s instructions for authors, and checked and followed any instructions regarding data sets, ethics approval, or statements.
- All authors have been named on the paper and the online submission form.
- All material has been referenced in the text clearly and thoroughly.
- Data has been carefully checked and any supplemental data required by the journal included.
- Any relevant interests have been declared to the journal.
- You’ve obtained (written) permission to reuse any figures, tables, and data sets.
- You’ve only submitted the paper to one journal at a time.
- You’ve notified all the co-authors that the paper has been submitted. Back to top
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement (Türkçe Yayın Etiği ve Malpraktis Bildirimi)
Rast Musicology Journal follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers. it is expected of authors, reviewers and editors that they 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 full details. Back to top
Fair play and editorial independence
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, study’s validity, clarity) and its relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over the entire editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content. Back to top
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. Back to top
Editors and editorial board members will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal 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 member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript. Back to top
The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. 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. Back to top
Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and/or society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. RAST editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on 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. Back to top
Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavour. RAST shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to the scientific process have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. Back to top
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. Back to top
Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents 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 applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. Back to top
Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate. Back to top
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that is an observation, derivation or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge. Back to top
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 own 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 personal advantage. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation. Back to top
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 clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Back to top
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review and 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 10 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. Back to top
Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or 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 cited. 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. Back to top
Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behaviour and unacceptable.
The publication of some kinds of articles (such as clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal 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 primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication. Back to top
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, 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 coauthors 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. Back to top
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). Back to top
Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also 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 in the course of 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. Back to top
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance 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 statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed. Back to top
Authors are obliged to participate in the peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents 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 in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given. Back to top
When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper. Back to top
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, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. Back to top
(Trebuchet MS, 14 font size, bold, left-justified, only the first letter of the title is capital and the others are lower cases excluding special names) Back to top
Names and institutional affiliations – including country – and addresses of all contributing authors are required.
Author’s Name and Surname1, Author’s Name and Surname2, left-justified (12 font size)
1Department, University, City, Country, full address, orcid, E-mail (8 font size)
2Department, University, City, Country, full address, orcid, E-mail (8 font size) Back to top
this section should contain 5 words that are written in 10 font size and separated with commas, full italic and all lower case including names. Back to top
The introduction section should (1) present the scope and objective of the paper and state the problem, (2) briefly review the pertinent literature and (3) provide an overview of the main results of the work. Back to top
The methodology must be clearly stated and described in sufficient detail related to methods or with sufficient references. Back to top
The findings and arguments of the work should be explicitly described and illustrated. Supporting figures, tables and images of the results (no more than two figures and two tables) may be included in the extended abstract. All the tables, images and figures should be centered. Figures and images should be numbered (see Figure 1 for an example) and figure headers should be placed under the figure or image; as for the tables, they should also be numbered (see Table 1 for an example) and the table header should be placed at the top. References (if any) of the tables, figures, and images should be presented right under the tables, figures, and images in the form of author surname and publication date. Back to top
Figure 1. Type your caption here
Table 1. Type your title here.
Conclusions should include (1) the principles and generalizations inferred from the results, (2) any exceptions to, or problems with these principles and generalizations, (3) theoretical and/or practical implications of the work, and (5) conclusions drawn and recommendations. Back to top
References should be listed in alphabetical order and presented in a format according to the Chicago Manual of Style: https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-2.html
APA and Vancouver of reference styles are also welcome. Back to top
Cited references, names, and affiliations must be published in Roman script. Back to top
Papers may be submitted in Word format. Figures and tables should be saved separately from the text. To assist you in preparing your paper, we provide formatting template(s). PDF and Word templates are available for this journal. Back to top
Please supply a short biographical note for each author. Back to top
Figures should be high quality (1200 dpi for line art, 600 dpi for grayscale and 300 dpi for color, at the correct size). Figures should be supplied in one of our preferred file formats: EPS, or Microsoft Word (DOC or DOCX) files are acceptable for figures that have been drawn in Word. Back to top
Rast Musicology Journal uses OJS to manage the peer-review process. Back to top
There are no submission fees, publication fees or page charges for this journal. Back to top
Rast is an open-access journal. Back to top
Should you have any queries, please contact with us.
Tokat Gaziosmanpaşa Üniversitesi Kampüsü Taşlı Çiftlik Yerleşkesi Posta Kodu: 60100, Tokat, Turkey