Ethical Code
The Rivista di Studi e Ricerche sulla Criminalità Organizzata is a peer-reviewed academic journal that adheres to the ethical guidelines for publication developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The editor-in-chief, editorial staff, authors, and reviewers are all expected to comply with the ethical conduct and principles outlined in this code.
1. Editorial Decision-Making and Published Materials
1.1
Articles are selected through a double-blind peer review process, which ensures both scientific and editorial quality. The identity of reviewers is always kept confidential, unless suspected or alleged misconduct compels the journal to disclose it to third parties.
1.2
Editors work on a voluntary basis. The journal's website is hosted by the University of Milan, a public institution dedicated to scientific research and education, which does not interfere with the editors’ freedom of choice and activities, provided these remain consistent with the academic mission of the journal.
1.3
Editors may issue a desk rejection and decline an article without peer review if it is deemed to be of low quality or unsuitable for the journal’s readership. The decision not to accept a manuscript is based solely on its academic content and is independent of the authors’ language, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political beliefs.
1.4
Submitted contributions are never shared with editors of other journals unless with the consent of the author or in cases of suspected misconduct (see below). Editors do not disclose the status of a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author. The journal’s submission software prevents unauthorised access. In cases of investigation into misconduct, it may be necessary to share materials with third parties (e.g., an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
1.5
Editors take into account any misconduct by reviewers and pursue any allegations of breaches of confidentiality, failure to disclose conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), misuse of confidential material, or intentional delay of the review process for competitive advantage. Allegations of serious reviewer misconduct, such as plagiarism, are referred to the appropriate institutional bodies.
1.6
Editors make it clear to authors that the role of the reviewer is to provide recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection. Correspondence from editors is usually with the corresponding author, who is responsible for involving co-authors at all stages. Editors communicate with all authors upon submission and again at the final acceptance stage to ensure that all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication. Normally, editors forward reviewers’ comments in full. However, in exceptional cases, parts of a review may be withheld, for example if they contain defamatory or offensive remarks. Editors ensure that such editorial discretion is not used inappropriately to suppress uncomfortable feedback. If there are valid reasons to involve additional reviewers at a later stage in 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 reviewers. If a manuscript is rejected, editors welcome appeals from authors. Editors, however, are not obliged to reverse their decision.
1.7
To avoid endogeneity, the proportion of research articles published in which the author (or one of the authors) is a member of the Editorial Board or a reviewer must not exceed 25% across the two most recently published issues. Articles authored by members of the Editorial Board are subject to a review process in line with the Ethical Code and free from conflicts of interest. The author’s membership of the journal’s governing bodies is explicitly indicated in the article’s full text or metadata. The procedure for submissions by Editorial Board members is described in the guidelines for authors.
1.8
Editors are committed to avoiding any manipulation of the journal’s rankings or artificial inflation of its metrics. In particular, it is ensured that peer review is conducted solely on academic grounds, and that authors are not pressured to cite specific publications for non-scientific reasons.
2. Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief, Reviewers, and Authors
2.1 Editor-in-Chief
Publication decisions
The Editor-in-Chief of the Journal is responsible for deciding whether to publish submitted articles. In making such decisions, the Editor-in-Chief may rely on the advice of the Journal’s Scientific Committee, and may consult individual editors or referees. The Editor-in-Chief is bound by the requirements of current legislation concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. When a submission does not fall within the scope or interests of the Journal, the Editor-in-Chief promptly notifies the author.
Safeguards
Given the specific subject matter of the studies and research hosted by the Journal, the Editor-in-Chief must ensure the highest possible balance between the individual’s right to the protection of their reputation, the collective right to access historically verified facts, and the authors’ right to offer a reconstruction or interpretation of such facts on a sound scientific basis.
In compliance with legal regulations, the Editor-in-Chief undertakes to apply the same principles when handling any requests for the removal of articles or parts thereof based on the so-called “right to be forgotten”.
Scientific universalism
The Editor-in-Chief assesses submissions based on their content without discrimination on grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation of the authors.
Confidentiality
The Editor-in-Chief and every member of the editorial team must not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s), referees, or potential referees.
In particularly sensitive cases, the Editor-in-Chief may nonetheless consult the publisher.
Conflict of interest and disclosure
Unpublished materials contained in a submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editor-in-Chief or any member of the editorial team without the express written consent of the author.
2.2 Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also support the author in improving the manuscript. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific method.
Timeliness
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to assess the research reported in a manuscript or knows that timely review will be impossible should notify the editors and decline the review invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others unless expressly authorised by the Editor-in-Chief.
Objectivity
Peer review must be conducted objectively. Reviewers should express their views clearly and with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. Reviewers should also bring to the attention of the editors any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and any other published paper of which they are aware.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the submission.
2.3 Authors
Authorship and Responsibility
All authors of the works published in the journal take responsibility for their conduct and the validity of their research and what they have written. Authors are aware that all content is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA). In the event of a dispute regarding authorship, it will be resolved through the appropriate institutional channels or through other independent bodies. Editors will act accordingly, for example, by correcting the authorship of the published works.
Authorship must be properly attributed, including a full indication of any co-authors. If other individuals have significantly contributed to specific stages of the research whose results are being published, their contribution must be explicitly acknowledged. In the case of multi-authored contributions, the author submitting the manuscript to the journal must declare that they have obtained approval from all co-authors regarding the final version of the article and their consent for publication in the journal.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, they must have appropriately cited or quoted them. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
Conflict of interest
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. The conflict of interest statement is published alongside the contribution, so that readers are informed about it.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher.
When actual errors in works published in the journal are reported by readers, authors, or editors, if these do not invalidate the work as a whole, the Director is required to publish a correction in the first subsequent issue of the journal. If the error invalidates the work or substantial parts of it, the article will be retracted with an explanation of the reason for the retraction ("honest error").
In the case of suspected misconduct, the editors will contact the authors and allow them to respond to the comments. If the response is unsatisfactory, the editors will bring the case to the appropriate institutional bodies. The editors of the journal will respond to concerns regarding misconduct in published works raised by organizations dealing with research integrity. The editors may independently decide to retract a document if they are convinced that a case of serious misconduct has occurred, even if the outcome of an institutional or national body's investigation does not mandate retraction.
Retracted documents will be kept online and will be clearly marked in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
3. Academic Debate
The journal welcomes criticism from readers on published works and will consider publishing these critiques to promote scientific debate, provided they are submitted in a timely manner. The authors of the original works will be given the opportunity to respond to further promote the debate. Any criticisms that reveal potential instances of misconduct will be thoroughly investigated, even if they are received long after publication.
4. Artificial Intelligence Statement
The Rivista di Studi e Ricerche sulla Criminalità Organizzata acknowledges the importance of innovations related to artificial intelligence and understands the challenges and opportunities they present.
Authors who have used artificial intelligence tools in the preparation of a manuscript, in the creation of images or graphical elements of the article, or in the collection and analysis of data, are invited to explicitly declare their use, indicating the AI tool, the scope of application, the search queries used, and the date of use, in order to allow reproducibility and verification.
The author remains responsible for the accuracy and correctness of every published content and ensures compliance with the ethical code and anti-plagiarism standards.
Authors who have used AI or AI-assisted tools are required to include at the end of the manuscript a paragraph titled “Artificial Intelligence and AI-Assisted Technologies Statement,” containing the following information:
“During the preparation of this work, the author(s) used [TOOL/SERVICE NAME] on [DD/MM/YYYY], using the search terms: [SEARCH TERMS] for the purpose of [PURPOSE]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and modified the content as necessary and assume full responsibility for the content of the publication.”
Editors are not allowed to upload received manuscripts into artificial intelligence software, to avoid compromising privacy and copyright compliance.
Reviewers are committed not to use artificial intelligence tools for manuscript evaluation as critical thinking and original assessment, essential for this work, fall outside the scope of this technology.
Any use of published texts for training generative artificial intelligence systems or the use of automated data scraping tools is strictly prohibited.
