Evaluation and peer-review procedure
Texts received at the editorial office are subject to both internal (within the editorial office) and external (by reviewers outside the editorial office) review to ensure quality scientific research.
The selection of external, independent reviewers from outside the editorial board takes into account the scholarly reputation and area of expertise of the researcher and/or academic, their honesty, objectivity and professional experience. The reviewers are thus selected from among specialists with a reputation in the field, who are PhDs in the subject area.
The identity of the reviewers remains unknown to the authors in order to ensure the greatest possible objectivity and independence of opinion. At the same time, the names of the author(s) will not be known to the reviewers (double-blind reviewing system). In order to eliminate any doubt regarding the conflict of interest, the reviewers are asked to complete the following form:
➽ Download the statement regarding the conflict of interest (PDF)
Description of the procedure
Within no more than 15 working days from the receipt of the text in the Editorial Office, the editor in chief or the editorial secretary communicates to the author the decision on the preliminary acceptance or rejection of the material based on the eligibility criteria.
If the contribution is preliminary accepted, the editor in chief appoints an evaluator from among the members of the Scientific Committee, expert in the research field of the text proposed for publication. The editorial secretary ensures the anonymization of the material and makes available to the internal reviewer the text to be reviewed (in electronic format) and the following type of review form:
➽ Download the review form (PDF)
The internal reviewer ensures compliance with the editorial conditions for publication, the meeting of the scientific criteria for publishing the text, makes the necessary corrections, ensures that the text does not contain unfounded statements or erroneous elements, makes recommendations regarding the improvement of the material, and then completes and signs the standard form review after no more than 30 working days from the receipt of the manuscript.
The internal reviewer sends the electronic document containing his/her comments on the text to the editorial secretary and the affirmative/negative verdict for publication (decision explained in the review form).
Once the text has been evaluated by the internal reviewer, the editor in chief - in consultation with the internal reviewer and the editorial secretary - establishes the identity of the two external reviewers and the editorial secretary sends them the text to be reviewed in electronic format (including the corrections made by the internal reviewer).
The two external reviewers will independently follow the same procedure as described for the in-house reviewer and will complete the review form. The reviewers will be asked to formulate an opinion within a maximum of four weeks (30 working days).
Within one week of receiving all the review reports, the editorial board will decide whether to accept (possibly with some modifications) or reject the manuscript on the basis of them (one internal review report, two external review reports)[1].
Whatever the opinion of the reviewers (accepted, accepted subject to changes or rejected), within one week of receiving the review reports, the editorial secretary and the responsible editor enter the reviewers’ comments and recommendations in the electronic format of the text as a “comment” (using the track-changes function in Word). At the end of this process, the editorial secretary notifies the author(s) of the outcome of the reviewing process and the decision of the Editorial Board to accept or reject the manuscript and sends the author(s) the electronic document in which are highlighted the revisions of the three reviewers.
If the reviewers have expressed a favorable opinion[2] for publication with some changes, and this opinion has been confirmed by the Editorial Board, the editorial secretary will specify a deadline for entering the recommendations from the review reports and making other improvements/changes in the message accompanying the text returned to the author(s) (authors are usually advised to make the requested changes and return the final version of the text to the Editorial Secretary within two weeks). Within one week of receipt of the final version of the text, the editorial secretary will notify the author of the acceptance of the revised version or, where appropriate, inform the author that further improvements to the text are necessary.
If the reviewers have expressed an opinion unfavorable to publication, as confirmed by the decision of the Editorial Board, the editorial secretary shall inform the author(s) of the reasons for not publishing the text. The editorial secretary shall attach to his message the electronic document highlighting the comments of the three reviewers, without revealing their identities to the author(s). If any of the external reviewers have made other recommendations to the author (e.g. suggested that the text be published in another journal), the editorial secretary will also mention this in his message.
Final considerations
The editorial office undertakes to complete the entire review procedure for manuscripts received for publication within maximum ten weeks since the receipt of the manuscript.
The editorial secretary takes care of the archiving of the documents regarding the internal review and the external review, in order to be able to verify, in each case, the progress of the review procedure.
Unpublished manuscripts are not returned.
[1] The Editorial Board takes its decision by open vote. The content and conclusions of the review reports are made public at the meeting of the editorial board.
[2] If the verdict of the reviewers is not unanimous, the editorial board will take a decision after consulting another external reviewer, an authority in the field.