Peer-review
Contributions to be published in the Note section and presentations of works intended for the Schede section are subject to content review by the Editorial Committee and are then sent on to the subsequent stages of editorial processing (compliance with guidelines, layout, proofreading); the entire process (review and editorial care) takes a maximum of six months.
Articles intended for the Studi section, on the other hand, are reviewed using a double-blind peer-review process by two referees selected by the Editorial Committee from among specialists in the field to which the article belongs: neither the author nor the external reviewers know each other's identities. Using the OJS (PKP) platform, the referees responsible for evaluating the contribution must complete a specific review form, expressing their opinion on the article's publishability. There are four options:
- publishable in its current form: the article is correct and can proceed to the next stages of the editorial process without the author intervening on the content or form;
- publishable with minor revisions: the article is correct, but minimal intervention by the author (in form or content) is necessary before it can be considered final; the Editorial Committee is responsible for verifying the extent and quality of the author's intervention;
- publishable with substantial revisions: the article is original and interesting, but has critical issues that require significant intervention by the author. If both referees express this assessment, the new version of the article will undergo a further review process, carried out by a referee other than those responsible for the initial assessment. In exceptional cases, the new review may be entrusted to the Editorial Committee;
- Not publishable: the article is not publishable even with substantial changes. The Editorial Committee will inform the author of the reasons for exclusion.
Publishable articles will be sent to the next stages of processing (compliance with guidelines, layout, proofreading); the entire process (review and editorial care) has a maximum duration of nine months. In the event of failure by the reviewer to meet the deadline (four weeks) and in the absence of agreements with the Editorial Team, the Editorial Committee, in order to protect the interests of the author, will assign the task to other experts, informing the author of the resulting unexpected delay in processing times (the maximum duration of the editorial process will still be guaranteed).
For further information on the review process, see the section For Reviewers and the journal's Ethical Code under the heading Duties of reviewers.
-----------------------------
Below is a preview of the evaluation form submitted to reviewers:
Have you already expressed an opinion as a referee on this same text for another publication, or have you already read the text?
☐ Yes
☐ No
Does the article seem original from a scientific point of view?
☐ Very much
☐ Quite a lot
☐ Slightly
☐ Not at all
Are the arguments presented internally consistent, including with the title, regardless of whether they can be agreed with or not?
☐ Very much
☐ Quite a lot
☐ Slightly
☐ Not at all
Does the methodological approach used seem adequate to you, taking into account various points of view even if they differ from or oppose those of the author, and is it up to date with the latest research?
☐ Very much
☐ Quite a lot
☐ Slightly
☐ Not at all
Is it correct from a syntactic and grammatical point of view, fluent and easy to understand?
☐ Very much
☐ Quite a lot
☐ Slightly
☐ Not at all
Do you think the article is:
☐ Publishable in its current form
☐ Publishable with minor revisions
☐ Publishable with substantial revisions
☐ Not publishable
If there are revisions or bibliographical references, please indicate them below, specifying, if necessary, how and where you suggest changes to the text (there is no space limit).
