Etichs

Editorial Principles

1. Accountability and responsibility for journal content

Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief assume responsibility for all contributions published in Archivio Storico Lombardo. They are committed to ensuring both scientific and editorial quality through a rigorous double-blind peer review process and careful editing.
The journal maintains the integrity of the published record and grants long-term preservation of all published content.

2. Editorial independence and integrity

2.1 Independence of editorial decisions from commercial interests

The editors (Editorial Board and Editor-in-Chief) make their decisions about proposals submitted to the journal and published works on academic merit alone and take full responsibility for their decisions.
Archivio Storico Lombardo embraces an open access policy and has no commercial interest, so the journal’s editorial processes and editors’ decisions are independent of any commercial consideration.

2.2 Editors’ relationship to the journal publisher

The editors work on a volunteer basis. The journal’s website is hosted by Milan Università degli Studi, a public institution which has a scientific research and teaching mission and does not interfere with Archivio Storico Lombardo editors’ freedom of choice and activities, if their work is coherent with the scholarly mission of the journal.

2.3 Editors’ relationship to the journal publisher: Endogeny

The percentage of published research articles in which the author (or one of the authors) is a member of the Editorial Board or reviewer must not exceed 25% in the last two issues published.
Articles written by an author who is a member of the Editorial Board are guaranteed a review process in line with the Code of Ethics and free of conflicts of interest. An author's membership of journal boards is made explicit in the full-text or metadata of the article.

2.4 Journal metrics and decision-making

Archivio Storico Lombardo editors do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. They strive to ensure that submitted papers are reviewed on purely scholarly grounds and that authors are not pressured to cite specific publications for non-scholarly reasons.

3. Editorial confidentiality

3.1 Authors’ material

Archivio Storico Lombardo selects papers to be published through double-blind peer review. Peer reviewers are chosen by editors, who strive to protect the confidentiality of authors’ material and remind reviewers to do so as well. Submitted papers are never shared with editors of other journals, unless with the authors’ agreement or in cases of alleged misconduct (see below). Editors do not give any indication of a paper’s status with the journal to anyone other than the authors. Archivio Storico Lombardo web-based submission system prevents unauthorised access. In the case of a misconduct investigation, it may be necessary to disclose material to third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).

3.2 Reviewers

Archivio Storico Lombardo selects papers to be published through double-blind peer review.
Therefore, reviewers’ identities are always protected, unless an alleged or suspected reviewer’s misconduct compels the journal to disclose the reviewer’s name to a third party.

General editorial policies

4. Transparency and publishing ethics

Archivio Storico Lombardo aims at granting authors, readers, reviewers, and all other parties involved maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting about its work.

4.1 Authorship and responsibility

All signing authors of works published on Archivio Storico Lombardo take responsibility for the conduct and validity of their research and for what is written in their contributions. Authors acknowledge that all contents are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0) license.
Should any authorship dispute arise, it will be resolved at the appropriate institutional level or through other appropriate independent bodies. The editors will then act on the findings, for example by correcting authorship in published works.

4.2 Conflicts of interest and funding

All authors are required to explicitly declare that no conflicts of interest exist that could have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed. Authors must also indicate any funding bodies that supported the research and/or the project from which the article derives.

4.3 Editorial ethics of authors and of the journal

Editors evaluate submitted articles for publication based on their content, without discrimination on the basis of gender, race, age, ethnicity, religious belief, political views, or the nationality of the authors.
The author should not publish articles describing the same research in more than one journal.
Archivio Storico Lombardo is committed to ensuring that all published articles make an innovative contribution to their field. At the same time, it encourages authors to situate their work within the context of existing research, explaining why the study was necessary, what it adds, or why a replication of previous research was needed.

4.4 Research data availability

Authors are required to ensure transparency regarding the data on which their research is based.
Data may be made available by publishing them as Supplementary Files attached to articles, by depositing them in a FAIR Data Repository, or by providing them upon request. Authors publishing with Milano University Press, whether affiliated or not with Università degli Studi di Milano, may deposit their data in Dataverse, the University’s research repository.
If data are available upon request, interested researchers may contact the corresponding author to obtain access. To ensure compliance with ethical standards, data will be shared only after the signing of an agreement specifying the conditions of use and prohibiting unauthorized dissemination.

4.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence

Authors who have used artificial intelligence tools in the editing of a manuscript, in the production of images or graphical elements of the article, or in the collection and analysis of data, are invited to explicitly declare their use, mentioning the AI tool, the field of application, the search queries used and the date of use, in order to allow reproducibility and verification. The author will remain responsible for the accuracy and correctness of any published content and guarantees compliance with the Code of Ethics and anti-plagiarism rules. Authors who have used AI, or AI-assisted tools, are required to include a paragraph at the end of their manuscript, entitled "Declaration on Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies in the Writing Process", with the following information:
«During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [NAME OF TOOL/SERVICE] for the purpose of [REASON]. 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.».
Editors are not allowed to upload received manuscripts into artificial intelligence software, in order not to risk compromising privacy and copyright.

4.6 Plagiarism Policy

Archivio Storico Lombardo does not accept manuscripts with plagiarized material. For the purposes of this policy, plagiarism is defined as the use of previously authored works - including text, data, and images - of others or self without proper attribution.
Authors are required to declare that they have produced a work that is entirely original and that they have cited all sources used; they must always provide proper attribution to the sources and contributions mentioned in the article.
Editors are required to intervene promptly in the event of errors and incorrect behavior, whether confirmed or suspected. In cases of errors, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism in published articles or during the publication process, appropriate measures will be taken, in accordance with the recommendations and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Actions taken will be based on the severity of the plagiarism attempt but can include corrections to or retractions of the published article, the author being banned from publishing in the journal. Retracted papers will be retained online and will be prominently marked as retracted in all online versions, including the PDF, to ensure transparency to readers.

5. Responding to criticisms and concerns about integrity

5.1 Ensuring integrity of the published record: corrections

When genuine errors in works published on the journal are pointed out by readers, authors, or editors, which do not render the work invalid, a correction (or erratum) will be published as soon as possible. The paper will be corrected with a date of correction.
If the error renders the work or substantial parts of it invalid, the paper will be retracted with an explanation as to the reason for retraction (i.e., honest error). Retracted papers will be retained online, and they will be prominently marked as a retraction in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.

5.2 Ensuring the integrity of the published record: suspected research or publication misconduct

In cases of misconduct reported by reviewers, readers, or others, the editors will inform the person responsible for the report of the procedure that will be promptly initiated; they will verify the degree of actual overlap between the article in Archivio Storico Lombardo and the text or texts alleged to have been plagiarized; they will inform the Editorial Board and the Editorial Team in order to collectively decide on the next steps; they will present the author of the article with the evidence that has emerged from the comparison with any allegedly plagiarized texts and request an explanation.
If misconduct is confirmed, the journal will proceed with the official retraction of the published article and the withdrawal of the work in question.

5.3 Encourage scholarly debate

Archivio Storico Lombardo welcomes readers’ criticisms to works published by the journal and will consider publishing them to foster scientific debate, if they are proposed in a timely manner. The authors of the original works will be given the opportunity to reply to further promote the debate.
Any criticisms that raise the possibility of misconduct will be further investigated even if they are received a long time after publication.

6. Peer review process

All contributions submitted to the “Articles” section are subject to double-blind peer review, which is clearly described on the journal’s website information page. The review process is entrusted to two reviewers selected from a pool of specialists external to the Editorial Board and the Scientific Committee. The outcomes of the review, provided by the referees on a dedicated form, are promptly communicated to the authors by the editorial office via email.
Contributions intended for the journal’s other sections (“Rerum scriptores,” “Notes and Documents,” “Reviews”) are evaluated internally only.

6.1 Decision whether to review

Editors may reject a paper without sending it for peer review if it is deemed to be of insufficient quality or unsuitable for the journal’s readership. This decision is made in a fair and unbiased manner, and the criteria are made explicit to the author. The decision not to send a paper for peer review is based solely on its academic content and is independent of considerations such as language, gender, race, age, ethnicity, religious belief, political views, or the nationality of the authors.

6.2 Interaction with peer reviewers

Editors use appropriate reviewers for contributions considered suitable for publication, selecting individuals with relevant expertise. Reviewers are required to provide a formal declaration of any conflict of interest, to assess their suitability to carry out an impartial review. The presence of conflicts of interest may invalidate the peer review process.
Editors ensure that the materials to be evaluated are promptly delivered to reviewers and stress confidentiality of the material to peer reviewers.
Peer review must be conducted objectively, and any personal judgment about the author is inappropriate. Referees are required to adequately justify their evaluations. They are also invited to indicate key works that may have been overlooked by the author and to suggest adding their own publications to the bibliography only if relevant and necessary.
Finally, reviewers are asked to state whether they have any suspicions of plagiarism, falsification, or redundant publication, and to report any similarities or overlaps between the submitted manuscript and other works.

6.3 Reviewer misconduct

The journal’s editors take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of confidential material, or delay of peer review for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, are taken to the institutional level.

6.4 Interaction with authors

The journal’s editors inform authors that the role of reviewers is to provide recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection. Editors communicate with all authors at the time of submission and during the final acceptance stage to ensure that all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication.
Editors transmit all referee comments in full. In exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, for example if they contain defamatory or offensive remarks. They ensure that such discretion is not used to suppress critical comments.
If there are valid reasons to involve additional reviewers at an advanced stage of the process, this is clearly communicated to the authors.
The final editorial decision and the reasons for it are clearly communicated to both authors and referees. If an article is rejected, editors welcome requests for reconsideration from the authors. However, editors are not obliged to change their decision.

6.5 Use of Artificial Intelligence in peer-review process

Reviewers undertake not to use artificial intelligence tools to evaluate papers, in order to guarantee the application of critical thinking and original assessment, as required for this work. 

7. Editorial decision-making

The journal’s editors guarantee that decisions on publications are as fair and unbiased as possible.

7.1 Editorial and journal processes

All editorial processes are made clear in the information for authors on the journal's webpage, where it is stated what is expected of authors, which types of papers are published, and how papers are handled by the journal. All editors are fully familiar with the journal policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all decisions rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

7.2 Editorial conflicts of interest

The journal’s editors are not involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and collaborated with the authors, or if they have a personal relationship with the authors.
Archivio Storico Lombardo has a process in place to handle papers submitted by editors or editorial board members to ensure unbiased and independent handling of such papers. This process is stated in the information for authors.