Peer-review Process

Versione stampabile

Peer-review process 

 

The Journal submits all articles of a scientific and professional nature (except those belonging to sections expressly excluded from this process) to double anonymous peer review.

Preliminarily, each article is subjected to an evaluation (respectively by the Scientific Director and the Head of the Professional Area) in which the existence of thenecessary requirements (see the "evaluation elements of the refereeing procedure") to be able to start the refereeing process; otherwise the article is rejected.

The principles of conduct that inspire the refereeing to which the articles proposed for publication are subjected are:

- anonymity of authors and reviewers;

- specialization of the auditor in terms of specific expertise in the field of investigation to which the article refers;

- necessary agreement of the opinions of at least two auditors;

- timeliness of the assessment;

- rigorous evaluation of the quality of the research products (according to the above criteria);

- equal academic status between author and reviewer (peer review);

- tendential uniformity of judgment (through a detailed specification of the evaluation criteria and parameters).

For this reason, the authors are asked to:

- avoid inserting, in the initial version of the article and before its acceptance, references, direct and indirect, to themselves, to groups or "schools" to which they refer (these references may be included in the review phase of the article );

- indicate, in the submission phase, the thematic area (among those listed above) and the qualification.

The Scientific Committee annually verifies and updates the database of the specialist skills of each reviewer of the Journal.

The evaluation grid applied during the refereeing procedure is divided into specific points (illustrated in the "evaluation elements of the refereeing procedure").

 

Elements of evaluation of the review process

Each article that reaches the journal, depending on the topic, is preliminarily submitted to an accurate evaluation by the Scientific Director (assisted by the Scientific Committee)and the Head of the Professional Area (assisted by the Evaluation Committee) in which the existence of numerous requisites deemed necessary in order to be sent to the review process:

- relevance of the topic of the article with respect to the aim and scope of the journal;

- articulation and completeness of the abstract (with reference to: aims and methodology followed, results achieved, justification of the originality of the contribution);

- logic in the structuring of the report;

- presence of suitable bibliographic references;

- updating of contents;

- scientific nature (not merely informative or didactic) of the contribution;

- other elements that advise against continuing the review process.

 

If the article passes this preliminary phase, it is sent to the anonymous double blind peer review process which provides scores and analytical comments on 12 specific points:

- originality of the topic discussed in the paper;

- relevance of the contribution with respect to existing knowledge for the evolution of the doctrine (unless the theme has prevailing or total practical relevance);

- relevance of the contribution with respect to existing knowledge for practice (unless the theme has prevailing or total theoretical relevance);

- clarity in the definition of the research objectives;

- adequacy in the explanation of the method / approach used;

- clarity in the specification of the limits of the method used;

- consistency between the definition of the research objectives and the method/approachused;

- clarity in the explanation of the results achieved;

- logical consistency between the different parts of the report;

- completeness of the analyzed literature - referring to articles published in previous issues of the journal, in other national journals and in international journals, to papers presented at national and international conferences, to monographs - with respect to the topic under investigation;

- adequacy of the economic language;

- clarity of presentation.

This journal uses double anonymized review, which means the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. To facilitate this, the authors are pleased to include the following separately:

1. Title page

The title page will remain separate from the manuscript through out the peer review process and willnot be sent to the reviewers. It should include:

•             The manuscript title

•             All authors' names and affiliations

•             A complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address

•             Acknowledgements

•             Conflict of interest statement

2. Anonymised manuscript

Please remove any identifying information, such as authors' names or affiliations, from your manuscript before submission.