Code of ethics
This Code of ethics - based on the guidelines of the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE), Committee on Publication Ethics (http://publicationethics.org/) - governs the conduct of all parties (the Editor-in-Chief and the Journal’s Management Committee, the Reviewers and the Authors) involved in the publication process for contributions to the Journal.
The Journal adopts the peer review procedure with a double-blind system in order to ensure the Reviewer is not aware of the Author’s identity until after publication of the contribution, and the Author never learns the identity of the Reviewer.
Obligations of the Journal’s Editor-in-Chief and Management Committee
Publication decisions. After consulting the Management Committee when appropriate, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding whether to publish the contributions sent spontaneously to the Journal. This decision is guided by the Journal’s cultural line (see the Objectives item on the first page for more details) and the contribution’s relevance with regard to the topics the Journal addresses. It may also take into consideration any legal requirements regarding defamation, copyright and plagiarism laws.
Fairness. Manuscripts are assessed solely on their scientific merit.
Privacy. The Editor-in-Chief and the members of the Journal’s Management Committee do not disclose information on the manuscript except to the Author or the Reporting Author and to the Reviewer.
Transparency and conflicts of interest. New materials contained in a manuscript submitted for publication must not be used in the meantime by anyone accessing the manuscript without the author’s written consent.
Obligations of the Reviewers
Peer review. For evaluation, the Journal calls on (except in justified exceptions) a wide range of Italian and foreign experts, professors in the Ius 11 scientific and disciplinary sector or in related sector, and many renowned experts in the related topics or in the specific topic of the submission.
Review suitability and time. Should the Reviewer consider him/herself unqualified to review the proposed submission or to be unable to review it within a suitable time, he/she must immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief and decline.
Privacy. Anonymous manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They must not be shown or discussed with others. Confidential information or ideas revealed during the review procedure must not be communicated or disclosed, and must not be used to anyone’s advantage. All information regarding completed reviews and reviews in progress are available in full only to the Editor-in-Chief, and are stored in a special file with restricted access that is password protected for an unlimited time.
Objectivity. The Reviewers’ opinions must be objective, neutral and respectful. No personal criticisms may be made to the author. Reviewers must express their opinions in a fully argued manner.
Sources. Reviewers must inform the Editor-in-Chief of any significant resemblance or overlap between the manuscript being reviewed and any other works published by third parties of which they are aware.
Conflicts of interest. Reviewers must refrain from reviewing manuscripts for which they believe to have recognised the Author, or for which they have a conflict of interest for any reason, whether scientific, professional or other.
Detailed information. More detailed information is provided on the first page of the Journal in the Reviewers and Reviews section
Obligations of the Authors
Qualifications. Authors guarantee the correctness of their academic qualifications and professional title.
Originality of the work and plagiarism. Authors must ensure their work is entirely original. If Authors use the works of other authors, they must cite them appropriately providing complete bibliographic references (more details are provided in the “How to draft submissions” section, on the first page of the Journal).
Multiple publications. Authors must not request publication of a manuscript essentially describing the same research in more than one scientific review or publication, without informing the Editor-in-Chief of this beforehand. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time without notice is ethically unacceptable.
Sources. The work of other researchers must always be appropriately acknowledged in their interest.
Author’s identity. Only the person having effectively conceived, developed, conducted or interpreted a study may be identified as an essay’s Author or co-author. Other persons having contributed to the research in other respects may be identified in a different manner (e.g. as collaborators, translators, reviewers, etc.).
Referring author. This is the Author responsible for all communication with the Journal for the purposes of publication. The Referring Author must ensure that the essay lists all co-authors and only effective co-authors, stating whether certain parts are to be attributed exclusively to any one of them. All co-authors must have read and approved the final version of the essay and agreed to its publication in compliance with this Journal’s rules.
Funding. If the research on which the essay is based received funding, the circumstances must be duly explained in a note at the beginning of the essay.
Transparency and conflicts of interest. All the Authors declare in their manuscript any relevant conflict of interest (economic, association, or other), that might appear to have undue influence on the results or interpretation of the research published in the manuscript.
Serious errors in published essays. Any Author noticing a significant error or serious scientific error in accuracy in a work already published in the Journal must immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief and assist fully in removing the essay or correcting the erroneous part, acknowledging the correction.