Scope and objectives of the journal

Scope and objectives of the journal

The journal is published by the Art Museum of Estonia. All published research is original and deals with issues regarding art, art history, visual culture, and museum studies which the museum finds relevant. Different issues of the journal are compiled based on the research and exhibition activities of the museum, on research on the museum’s archives and collections, and on conferences resulting from the scientific work of the museum, covering the Baltics, Russia, Scandinavia and Eastern and Central Europe, from the late medieval period to the present. The peer reviewed journal publishes academic articles (up to 40,000 characters in length) and shorter case studies.

Commitment to ethical publishing

All books and journals published by the Art Museum of Estonia Foundation, which contain original research, follow the ethics principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

For the author

• The author must confirm in writing that the article submitted is based on their original research. All work by other authors must be properly referenced. No plagiarism is allowed.
• The list of authors should include all of those who contributed to the study. People whose contributions are noteworthy should be listed as co-authors. People who have not directly participated in the research but who have helped with the paper should be mentioned in the acknowledgements section. If the study has been completed with a grant from a scientific institution and/or is part of a specific research project, this, too, should be noted.
• The author shall not publish the same research paper in more than one publication. Submitting a manuscript simultaneously to multiple publications is considered unethical.
• The author should notify the publisher of a possible conflict of interest that may affect the interpretation and presentation of study results.
• The author must participate in the review process and supplement and edit the manuscript based on the reviewer’s recommendations. Rejection of the reviewer’s suggestions must be explained.
• If the author discovers errata in published articles which result from the editing or the publishing process, they should inform the publisher and correct the discovered errors together with the publisher. If the author discovers that they have unintentionally included erroneous data (corrigendum) in the published article, they should notify the publisher as soon as possible. Depending on the extent and seriousness of the errors, the author has the option of recalling the article in collaboration with the publisher.

For the reviewer

• The reviewer must maintain confidentiality in respect to all of the reviewed manuscripts and the information therein.
• The reviewer must be objective. If the reviewer is able to ascertain the identity of the author of the manuscript to be reviewed, they must refrain from any unprofessional and unethical criticism directed at the author.
• The reviewer’s notes should be worded clearly and concisely. The reviewer’s claims should be supported by references, whenever possible.
• The reviewer should make sure that the author has referenced all important sources published previously on the topic concerned.
• The reviewer should point out the possibility of plagiarism to the publisher if the manuscript contains extensive overlap and similarities with earlier research papers.
• If the reviewer is unable to review a manuscript for any reason, they should notify the editor as soon as possible. If the reviewer discovers upon reading the manuscript that they might have a potential conflict of interest with the author of the manuscript, they must stop the review process immediately and contact the editor. A conflict of interest could arise from the author’s and reviewer’s overlapping research interests, collaboration or personal relationships. If the editor is notified of a potential conflict of interest in a timely manner, a new reviewer can be found for the manuscript.
• The reviewer must present their decision of the suitability of the manuscript and their corrections in writing on a review form.

For the editor

• The editor has the right to accept a manuscript for publication or to reject it if it is unfit for publication. The editor may also ask the author to edit the manuscript technically. If the author is unable to do that within a reasonable period, the editor has the right to reject the technically unsuitable manuscript. Based on the reviewer’s suggestions, the editor may ask the author to edit the manuscript pursuant to the reviewer’s written comments forwarded to them. The editor has the right to edit, shorten and rephrase the manuscript in order to make it suitable to the overall style of the publication; however, the editor must ask for the author’s approval for any such changes.
• The suitability of manuscripts submitted to the journal is assessed based on the intellectual content, originality, clarity, and disciplinary relevance of the manuscripts. To refuse publication for any other reason, such as the gender, race, nationality, ethnicity, citizenship, sexual orientation, political or religious views of the author, or for personal reasons is considered unethical.
• The editor and publisher must not reveal any information about the contents of manuscripts. To share the author’s research findings orally or in writing with third persons before the publication is considered unethical.
• The editor, the publisher and the members of the editorial board shall not use the information in unpublished manuscripts for their personal research without the prior written consent of the author.
• The editor is obligated to maintain the anonymity of the reviewer.
• The editor-in-chief will mediate and solve all possible conflicts between the author, the members of the editorial board, the publishing personnel, and the reviewers.