Publication ethics

Resonancias adheres to the ethical standards for academic journals that prevail today and, in particular, to the chapter dedicated to editors in the statement on responsible publication from the Second World Congress on Research Integrity held in Singapore in 2010, promoted currently by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Likewise, we use the ethical guidelines of this organization and the principles of transparency and good practices promoted by it as frameworks that guide our work.

In this context, the journal's editorial team and committee do their best to ensure that the article evaluation process is transparent, ensuring that the evaluators are qualified people in the corresponding field, that they act with the greatest possible impartiality, and that they issue their reports based on strictly academic considerations. To this end, it seeks, among other things, that the evaluation is carried out using the "double-blind" system: the authors do not know who is evaluating them, and those who carry out the review do not know who they are considering. In addition, it requests its reviewers to declare any conflict of interest (even potential) and prepare clear, detailed, and useful reports.

Likewise, the journal requires its authors to send original proposals that:

  1. contribute substantially to the advancement of knowledge in their field;
  2. have not been submitted to other journals simultaneously;
  3. make their possible conflicts of interest explicit;
  4. indicate their sources of information;
  5. use generative artificial intelligence and other computer tools for exclusively technical tasks such as data analysis;
  6. list as authors only people who meet the authorship criteria (see Author Guidelines); and
  7. Give the corresponding credit to institutions or people who, without meeting the authorship criteria, have contributed to preparing or financing the text, which implies, among other things, indicating the data of the research project or associated thesis if applicable (see Author Guidelines for more details).

At the same time, it offers its authors -and its users in general- the possibility of:

  • proposing to the editorial committee ( the publication of letters or responses to articles recently published in the journal with which they have significant discrepancies of an academic nature, that is, related to their hypotheses, theoretical approaches, methods, and data;
  • objecting, at the time of proposing their article, to a maximum of two potential reviewers –but not their institutions or working groups– who present potential conflicts of interest that might prevent them from evaluating the text with the expected impartiality;
  • and reporting, in a responsible and well-founded manner, any inappropriate conduct by both members of the editorial team or committee as well as external reviewers, in which case they should write to the journal’s email ( or, failing that, to the Management of the Institute of Music (, the academic department that holds the journal.

If the veracity of a complaint is verified, the editorial team and committee will adopt concrete measures to repair any damage caused. These may include, among others, the publication of corrections or public apologies and the retraction of an article.