Editorial Principles
1. Accountability and Responsibility for Journal Content
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts take full responsibility for all content published in the journal. They are committed to upholding both scholarly and editorial standards through a rigorous double-blind peer review process and attentive editorial work. The journal ensures the integrity of the academic record and guarantees the long-term preservation of all published materials.
2. Editorial Independence and Integrity
2.1 Independence of Editorial Decisions from Commercial Interests
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts make decisions on submitted proposals and published works based solely on academic merit and take full responsibility for those decisions.
Artology adheres to a diamond open access model and maintains no commercial interests. Accordingly, the journal’s editorial processes and the decisions of its editors are entirely independent of commercial considerations.
2.2 Editors’ Relationship to the Journal Publisher and Sponsor
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts serve on a voluntary basis. The journal’s website is hosted by University of Milan, a public academic institution with a mission of research and education. The University of Milan does not interfere with the editors’ independence or decision-making, provided their work remains aligned with the scholarly mission of the journal.
The School of Arts at Peking University sponsors the journal by covering its operating costs, in line with its mission to promote international research in the arts. This financial support is provided without any editorial influence or interference. The School of Arts recognises and respects the complete editorial autonomy of the journal and its boards, and no conditions are placed on content selection or peer review processes.
2.3 Endogeny
To ensure editorial transparency and integrity, no more than 25% of research articles published in the last two issues of Artology: Studies in the Arts may be authored or co-authored by members of the Editorial Board or reviewers.
Articles authored by Editorial Board members undergo a peer review process that strictly follows ethical guidelines and safeguards against conflicts of interest. The author’s affiliation with the journal is clearly indicated in the article’s full text or metadata.
2.4 Journal Metrics and Decision-Making
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially manipulating metrics. In particular, all submissions are evaluated exclusively on scholarly merit, and authors are never pressured to cite specific publications for non-academic reasons.
3. Editorial Confidentiality
3.1 Authors’ Material
Artology: Studies in the Arts selects papers for publication through a double-blind peer review process. Peer reviewers are chosen by the editors, who are committed to protecting the confidentiality of authors’ materials and require reviewers to do the same. Submitted manuscripts are never shared with editors of other journals unless the authors have given explicit permission or in cases involving alleged misconduct (see below).
Editors do not disclose the status of a submission to anyone other than the authors. The journal’s web-based submission system ensures protection against unauthorized access. In cases of misconduct investigation, it may be necessary to share materials with appropriate third parties, such as institutional committees or editorial boards.
3.2 Reviewers
Artology: Studies in the Arts selects papers for publication through a double-blind peer review process. As such, the identities of reviewers are always kept confidential, unless a case of alleged or suspected reviewer misconduct necessitates disclosure to a third party.
General Editorial Policies
4. Encourage Maximum Transparency and Good Publishing Ethics
Artology: Studies in the Arts is committed to ensuring maximum transparency and to providing complete and honest reporting for authors, readers, reviewers, and all other parties involved in the publishing process.
4.1 Authorship and Responsibility
All listed authors of works published in Artology: Studies in the Arts take full responsibility for the integrity, validity, and content of their contributions. By submitting to the journal, authors acknowledge that all published content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
In the event of an authorship dispute, the matter will be addressed at the appropriate institutional level or by another competent independent body. The editors of Artology will act on the outcome of such proceedings, including making necessary corrections to the authorship of published work.
4.2 Conflicts of Interest and Role of the Funding Source
Authors must disclose any relevant financial or non-financial conflicts of interest at the time of submission to Artology: Studies in the Arts. All declarations of potential conflicts are published alongside the article to ensure transparency and inform readers of any possible influences on the research.
4.3 Authors’ Publishing Ethics
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts are committed to ensuring that all published papers offer a substantial and original contribution to their field. The journal discourages “salami publications” (i.e., dividing research into the smallest publishable units) and avoids duplicate or redundant publication unless it is fully disclosed and justified (for example, translation into another language with proper cross-referencing).
Authors are expected to clearly situate their work within the existing literature, explaining why the research was undertaken, what new knowledge or perspective it contributes, and what readers should gain from it.
4.4 Research Data Availability
Artology: Studies in the Arts encourages authors to make available any data underlying their research. Data may be shared as "Supplementary Files" published alongside the article, deposited in a recognized FAIR data repository, or made available upon request, and should follow the FAIR principles.
Authors publishing with Milano University Press can deposit their data in the University's Data Research Repository Dataverse. When data are available upon request, interested researchers may contact the corresponding author to obtain access. In such cases, and to ensure compliance with ethical standards, data will be shared only after a signed disclosure agreement is in place, specifying conditions of use and prohibiting unauthorized distribution.
4.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence
Artology: Studies in the Arts recognizes the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) innovations and the challenges and opportunities they present to scholarly research and publishing. Authors who have used AI tools in the preparation of their manuscript — whether for editing text, generating images or graphical elements, or collecting and analyzing data — are required to explicitly disclose this use. The disclosure must specify the AI tool or service employed, the field or purpose of application, the search queries or prompts used, and the date(s) of use, to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and verification.
Authors retain full responsibility for the accuracy, integrity, and ethical compliance of the manuscript. They must guarantee adherence to the journal’s code of ethics and anti-plagiarism rules.
Manuscripts involving AI or AI-assisted tools must include a paragraph at the end of the paper titled “Declaration on Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process,” containing a statement such as:
“During the preparation of this paper, the author(s) used [TOOL/SERVICE NAME] on [DD/MM/YYYY] using the search terms: [SEARCH TERMS] in order to [PURPOSE]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as necessary and take full responsibility for the content of the publication.”
For privacy and copyright protection, editors are not permitted to upload manuscripts into AI software.
4.6 Plagiarism Policy
Artology: Studies in the Arts strictly prohibits the submission of manuscripts containing plagiarized material. For the purposes of this policy, plagiarism is defined as the use of previously authored works—including text, data, images, or other content—whether by others or the authors themselves, without proper attribution.
Editors are obliged to take prompt action in the event of suspected or confirmed plagiarism or other ethical violations. To assist in identifying unoriginal content, the journal employs iThenticate software to perform Similarity Checks on all submitted manuscripts.
When plagiarism is detected, at any stage, including pre-publication or post-publication, the corresponding author will be notified and asked to make necessary corrections or, if required, to withdraw the submission, in accordance with the COPE guidelines on retraction.
The journal editors will determine appropriate responses to cases of plagiarism based on their severity. Possible actions include correction or retraction of the published article, and/or banning the offending author(s) from future submissions.
Retracted articles will remain available online but will be clearly marked as retracted in all versions, including the PDF, to ensure full transparency for readers.
5. Responding to Criticisms and Concerns
5.1 Ensuring Integrity of the Published Record – Corrections
Artology: Studies in the Arts is committed to preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record. When factual errors are discovered in a published article—whether by the authors, readers, or editors—the journal will evaluate their significance and, when necessary, publish a correction.
Corrections may take the form of errata, corrigenda, or expressions of concern, depending on the nature of the issue. All corrections will be clearly linked to the original article and made freely available to ensure full transparency for readers.
5.2 Ensuring Integrity of the Published Record – Suspected Research or Publication Misconduct
If serious concerns arise regarding the conduct, validity, or reporting of research published in Artology: Studies in the Arts, the editors will contact the authors to request clarification. If the response is unsatisfactory, the editors will refer the matter to the appropriate institutional or independent bodies for investigation.
Editors reserve the right to retract a publication if they are confident that misconduct has occurred, even if investigations by other authorities do not recommend retraction. Any retracted articles will remain publicly accessible but clearly marked as retracted in all versions, including the PDF.
5.3 Encouraging Scholarly Debate
Artology welcomes well-reasoned critiques of published work submitted in a timely fashion. Authors of the original work will be invited to respond, fostering an open and constructive academic dialogue.
Submissions raising potential concerns about ethical breaches will be thoroughly investigated, regardless of how much time has passed since the article’s publication.
6. Ensuring a Fair and Appropriate Peer Review Process
The editors of Artology: Studies in the Arts are committed to managing peer review in a transparent, impartial, and responsible manner. The peer review process is described in detail on the journal’s website under “Information for Authors.”
6.1 Decision Whether to Review
Editors may reject submissions without external review (desk rejection) if a manuscript is outside the journal’s scope or lacks sufficient academic quality. These decisions are guided solely by scholarly relevance and merit, and are made without regard to the authors’ background or identity.
6.2 Interaction with Peer Reviewers
Editors select peer reviewers with appropriate subject-matter expertise and ensure that they are free from conflicts of interest. Reviewers are informed of their responsibilities and expected to evaluate ethical aspects of the research, such as plagiarism or redundancy.
Peer reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest. The editors may disqualify reviewers to maintain an unbiased evaluation. Reviewers are required to maintain confidentiality throughout the process.
6.3 Reviewer Misconduct
Suspected reviewer misconduct—such as breach of confidentiality, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, or inappropriate use of materials—will be investigated thoroughly. Serious violations may be referred to the reviewer’s institution for further action.
6.4 Interaction with Authors
Authors are informed that reviewer comments are advisory and that final editorial decisions rest with the editors. Correspondence is conducted primarily with the corresponding author, who is responsible for keeping co-authors informed.
Peer reviewer comments are typically shared in full. However, in rare cases, parts of reviews may be redacted if they contain defamatory or offensive content. Additional reviewers may be engaged when needed, and authors will be informed accordingly.
Editorial decisions, including the rationale for rejection or revision, are communicated clearly to authors and reviewers. Authors may appeal a decision, but the editors are under no obligation to reverse their decision.
6.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Peer-Review Process
Reviewers must not use generative AI tools in the peer review process. Critical evaluation must be conducted independently and reflect the reviewer’s own scholarly judgment.
7. Editorial Decision-Making
7.1 Editorial and Journal Processes
All editorial workflows, submission procedures, and manuscript types are clearly described on the journal’s website. Editors are thoroughly familiar with the journal’s mission and policies. Final editorial decisions rest with the managing editor.
7.2 Editorial Conflicts of Interest
Editors do not make decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest—such as personal relationships, prior collaborations, or shared institutional affiliations. The journal has clear procedures to ensure that manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled independently and without bias.