1. Purpose and Scope

Open Music Studies (OMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of editorial integrity, academic independence, transparency, fairness, and publication ethics.

This policy establishes the responsibilities and ethical standards applicable to all individuals involved in editorial decision-making at OMS, including the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Editorial Board members, Guest Editors, and any other editors acting on behalf of the journal.

The policy is informed by the principles and guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and should be read together with the journal's policies on peer review, publication ethics, conflicts of interest, corrections and retractions, research integrity, and the use of artificial intelligence.

2. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions at OMS must be based exclusively on the scholarly quality, originality, methodological or conceptual rigor, relevance, ethical integrity, and contribution of the submitted work to the scope of the journal.

Editors must exercise independent academic judgment and must not allow editorial decisions to be influenced by:

• commercial interests;
• institutional relationships;
• personal relationships;
• political or ideological considerations;
• nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, geographic origin, or career status of the authors;
• pressure from publishers, sponsors, authors, reviewers, or other parties; or
• expectations concerning citation performance or journal metrics.

The Editor-in-Chief has primary responsibility for safeguarding editorial independence and ensuring that decisions are made in accordance with the journal's policies.

3. Responsibilities of Editorial Board Members

Members of the OMS Editorial Board are expected to:

1. uphold the journal's standards of scholarly and publication ethics;
2. support the development of the journal's academic quality and international reputation;
3. provide independent and impartial editorial advice when requested;
4. assist in identifying suitably qualified and independent peer reviewers;
5. review manuscripts when appropriate and within their area of expertise;
6. contribute to the development and periodic evaluation of editorial policies;
7. promote responsible research and publication practices;
8. identify potential ethical concerns or publication misconduct;
9. maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts, reviews, editorial correspondence, and editorial decisions;
10. disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest;
11. avoid using their editorial position for personal, institutional, financial, or academic advantage; and
12. comply with the journal's policies concerning artificial intelligence and digital editorial tools.

Editorial Board membership does not guarantee preferential consideration of manuscripts submitted by board members or their collaborators.

4. Fairness and Impartiality

Editors must evaluate manuscripts fairly and consistently according to the journal's editorial criteria.

Editorial decisions must not be based on the reputation, seniority, nationality, institution, or professional status of the authors.

Editors should make reasonable efforts to ensure diversity of scholarly perspectives and avoid systematic bias in the selection of reviewers or evaluation of manuscripts.

Academic disagreement with an author's theoretical position, methodological approach, or interpretation is not in itself a legitimate reason for rejection unless it affects the scholarly validity, rigor, relevance, or integrity of the work.

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to OMS must be treated as confidential documents.

Editors and Editorial Board members must not disclose information concerning a submitted manuscript to individuals who are not directly involved in the editorial process.

Confidential information includes, but is not limited to:

• manuscript files and supplementary materials;
• author identities where these are protected by the peer-review model;
• reviewer identities;
• reviewer reports;
• editorial correspondence;
• unpublished data;
• images, musical materials, scores, recordings, transcriptions, or other unpublished research materials;
• editorial recommendations; and
• internal editorial decisions.

Unpublished information obtained through the editorial process must not be used for an editor's own research, publication, teaching materials, commercial activities, or personal advantage without the explicit permission of the relevant rights holder.

The obligation of confidentiality continues after the editorial process has been completed.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

Conflicts may arise from, among other circumstances:

• recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author;
• employment at the same institution or organizational unit;
• supervisory or student relationships;
• close personal or family relationships;
• significant academic rivalry;
• financial interests;
• participation in the research being evaluated;
• involvement in competing research;
• institutional or organizational interests; or
• any other relationship capable of influencing editorial judgment.

An editor with a relevant conflict of interest must withdraw from the handling of the manuscript.

The manuscript must then be reassigned to an independent editor who has no relevant conflict with the authors or the work.

7. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors or Editorial Board Members

Editors, Editorial Board members, and individuals otherwise involved in managing OMS are permitted to submit manuscripts to the journal. However, such submissions receive no preferential treatment.

An editor or board member who is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript must have no involvement in:

• selecting the handling editor;
• selecting reviewers;
• accessing confidential reviewer identities;
• influencing reviewer recommendations;
• participating in editorial discussions concerning the manuscript; or
• making the final editorial decision.

The manuscript must be handled independently by an editor without a relevant conflict of interest and must undergo the same peer-review standards applied to other submissions.

8. Responsibilities in Peer Review

Editors are responsible for maintaining a rigorous, fair, timely, and confidential peer-review process.

Editors should select reviewers based primarily on relevant scholarly expertise and should take reasonable steps to avoid conflicts of interest.

Editors should not select reviewers for the purpose of securing a predetermined recommendation.

Reviewer reports should be assessed critically rather than accepted automatically. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the designated human editor.

Editors may reject, disregard, request revision of, or seek clarification concerning reviewer reports that are:

• abusive or discriminatory;
• clearly outside the reviewer's expertise;
• unsupported by scholarly reasoning;
• primarily intended to promote unnecessary citation of the reviewer's work;
• inconsistent with the journal's ethical standards; or
• potentially generated through inappropriate or undisclosed use of artificial intelligence.

Where reviewer recommendations substantially conflict, the editor should exercise independent academic judgment and may seek additional expert review where necessary.

9. Research Integrity and Suspected Misconduct

Editors must take reasonable concerns relating to research or publication integrity seriously.

Such concerns may include:

• plagiarism;
• duplicate or redundant publication;
• fabricated or falsified data;
• manipulated images, audio, notation, or other research materials;
• inappropriate authorship;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• citation manipulation;
• peer-review manipulation;
• unethical research practices;
• unauthorized use of copyrighted or culturally sensitive materials;
• fabricated references;
• undisclosed or inappropriate use of artificial intelligence; or
• systematic manipulation of the publication process.

Editors must not make accusations of misconduct solely on the basis of suspicion.

Potential cases should be assessed fairly and, where appropriate, handled using relevant COPE guidance and procedures.

Authors should normally be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to concerns before a final determination is made.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Editors

OMS recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI and AI-assisted technologies, may provide useful support for certain administrative and technical activities in scholarly publishing.

However, the use of AI by editors must never compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, editorial independence, academic judgment, transparency, or accountability.

Human editors remain fully responsible for all editorial activities and decisions performed under their authority.

10.1 Human Responsibility for Editorial Decisions

Artificial intelligence must not replace human editorial judgment.

AI systems must not independently determine whether a manuscript should be:

• desk rejected;
• sent for peer review;
• revised;
• accepted; or
• rejected.

An editor must personally evaluate the relevant scholarly evidence and remain accountable for every formal editorial decision.

AI-generated recommendations or scores must never constitute the sole basis for an editorial decision.

10.2 Confidential Manuscript Material and External AI Systems

Editors must not upload, copy, enter, or otherwise transmit confidential submission materials into publicly accessible or unauthorized generative AI systems.

This restriction applies to complete or partial:

• manuscripts;
• abstracts where confidentiality remains applicable;
• unpublished data;
• figures;
• tables;
• photographs;
• musical scores;
• audio or audiovisual materials;
• supplementary files;
• reviewer reports;
• reviewer identities;
• author identities protected during peer review;
• editorial correspondence; and
• unpublished editorial assessments.

This prohibition applies whenever the AI provider's data storage, processing, retention, reuse, training, confidentiality, or security arrangements have not been formally approved for editorial use by OMS.

Editors should assume that submitted materials are confidential unless explicitly designated otherwise by the journal.

10.3 Permitted AI-Assisted Activities

AI-assisted tools may be used for limited non-confidential and low-risk administrative purposes, provided that their use does not compromise scholarly judgment or confidential information.

Examples may include:

• improving the grammar or clarity of generic editor-authored administrative messages;
• formatting non-confidential text;
• assisting with routine publicly available information;
• organizing non-confidential administrative information;
• checking publicly available metadata;
• technical workflow support; and
• other administrative activities formally approved by the journal.

All AI-generated output must be reviewed and verified by a human editor before use.

Editors remain responsible for errors, bias, fabricated information, inappropriate wording, or other problems contained in AI-generated material.

10.4 Journal-Approved AI and Automated Systems

OMS may employ secure AI-assisted or automated systems within its publishing workflow for legitimate purposes such as:

• similarity screening;
• reference or metadata checking;
• technical manuscript screening;
• research-integrity screening;
• workflow administration; or
• other functions approved by the journal.

Such systems should be used only where appropriate safeguards concerning confidentiality, privacy, data security, access, and human oversight are in place.

Outputs from automated systems must be interpreted by qualified human editors and must not automatically determine editorial outcomes.

10.5 AI-Assisted Evaluation of Manuscripts

Editors must not use general-purpose generative AI systems to produce substantive evaluations of confidential manuscripts.

Editors must not ask an external AI system to:

• summarize a confidential manuscript for the purpose of replacing editorial reading;
• assess the manuscript's novelty or academic contribution;
• judge methodological validity;
• evaluate the quality of evidence;
• recommend acceptance or rejection;
• generate a peer-review report;
• generate substantive editorial criticism presented as the editor's independent assessment; or
• compare unpublished manuscripts with unpublished materials from other submissions.

Editorial evaluation must remain an identifiable human scholarly responsibility.

10.6 AI-Generated Editorial Correspondence

AI may assist with the linguistic refinement of generic editorial communications only when no confidential manuscript information is disclosed to an unauthorized system.

Editors must review any AI-assisted communication before sending it and remain responsible for its accuracy, appropriateness, tone, and ethical implications.

AI must not autonomously communicate editorial decisions to authors or reviewers.

10.7 Detecting Possible AI Use by Authors or Reviewers

AI-detection software or automated indicators may be used only as screening signals and must not be treated as definitive proof that an author or reviewer has improperly used artificial intelligence.

An editorial decision or allegation of misconduct must not be based solely on an AI-detection score.

Where inappropriate or undisclosed AI use is suspected, editors should evaluate the available evidence, consult relevant journal policies, seek clarification where appropriate, and follow applicable publication-ethics procedures.

10.8 AI and Reviewer Confidentiality

Editors must take reasonable measures to ensure that reviewers understand the journal's confidentiality requirements concerning artificial intelligence.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or manuscript-derived information to unauthorized AI systems.

Where an editor has reasonable grounds to believe that a reviewer has compromised manuscript confidentiality through inappropriate AI use, the matter should be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication-ethics procedures.

The editor may disregard the affected review and obtain an independent replacement review where necessary.

10.9 AI Must Not Be Used to Infer Sensitive Personal Information

Editors must not use AI systems to infer, predict, classify, or profile authors or reviewers on the basis of personal characteristics unrelated to scholarly evaluation.

AI must not be used to infer characteristics such as ethnicity, religion, political orientation, gender identity, health status, or other sensitive attributes for editorial decision-making.

Reviewer selection and manuscript evaluation must be based on legitimate scholarly criteria.

10.10 Transparency and Accountability for Editorial AI Use

Editors remain accountable for any AI-assisted activity performed as part of their editorial responsibilities.

Where AI is used beyond routine technical or administrative functions, the editor should inform the Editor-in-Chief or journal office when appropriate.

OMS reserves the right to establish additional disclosure, documentation, security, or audit requirements concerning editorial use of AI as technologies and publication-ethics standards evolve.

11. Complaints and Appeals

Editors must respect the right of authors to raise legitimate concerns regarding editorial procedures and decisions.

Complaints or appeals should be considered objectively and, whenever possible, by an editor who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.

Editorial decisions may be reconsidered where there is credible evidence of:

• procedural error;
• material factual misunderstanding;
• inappropriate reviewer conduct;
• undisclosed conflicts of interest;
• ethical irregularities; or
• other substantial concerns affecting the integrity of the decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of an editorial decision.

12. Post-Publication Responsibilities

Editorial responsibility does not end when an article is published.

Where credible concerns arise after publication, editors should take appropriate action in accordance with the nature and severity of the issue.

Possible actions may include:

• publishing a correction;
• publishing a clarification;
• issuing an expression of concern;
• retracting an article; or
• taking other corrective action consistent with recognized publication-ethics standards.

The purpose of post-publication correction is to preserve the integrity and reliability of the scholarly record.

13. Professional Conduct

Members of the Editorial Board are expected to maintain professional and respectful communication with authors, reviewers, readers, journal staff, and other editors.

Abusive, discriminatory, intimidating, retaliatory, coercive, or otherwise inappropriate behavior is incompatible with service on the OMS Editorial Board.

Editorial authority must never be used to:

• demand inappropriate citations;
• obtain personal favors;
• retaliate against authors or reviewers;
• promote private interests;
• suppress legitimate academic disagreement; or
• secure unfair scholarly advantage.

14. Accountability and Breach of Editorial Policy

Allegations concerning misconduct by an editor or Editorial Board member will be evaluated fairly and, where appropriate, independently of the individual concerned.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the matter, actions may include:

• clarification or guidance;
• formal warning;
• removal from handling a particular manuscript;
• temporary suspension of editorial responsibilities;
• removal from the Editorial Board; or
• other actions necessary to protect the integrity of the journal.

No editor may participate in determining the outcome of a complaint concerning their own conduct.

15. Review of Editorial Board Membership

Editorial Board membership reflects an active professional responsibility rather than an honorary designation.

OMS may periodically review Editorial Board membership based on factors including:

• scholarly expertise;
• contribution to the journal;
• responsiveness;
• peer-review participation;
• professional conduct;
• adherence to editorial and ethical policies;
• conflicts of interest; and
• continued alignment with the academic scope and development of the journal.

Membership may be renewed, revised, or concluded as part of the journal's regular governance process.

16. Reference Framework

This policy is informed by the publication-ethics principles, guidance, cases, and resources developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), including guidance concerning:

• principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing;
• journal and editorial management;
• editorial conflicts of interest;
• ethical peer review;
• complaints and appeals;
• research and publication misconduct;
• corrections and retractions;
• authorship and artificial intelligence;
• artificial intelligence in editorial decision-making;
• confidentiality in peer review; and
• emerging ethical issues concerning artificial intelligence in scholarly publishing.

Where an ethical situation is not explicitly addressed by OMS policy, the journal may consult relevant COPE guidance and other recognized international standards of publication ethics.