Publication Ethics
INDEX
1. Liability and attribution
2. Editorial independence and integrity
2.1 Independence of editorial decisions from commercial interests
2.2 Editors' relationships with the journal
2.3 Metrics and decision-making
3. Confidentiality
3.1 Authors' Materials
3.2 Reviewers
4. Transparency and ethics of publications
4.1 Authorship and responsibility
4.2 Conflict of interest and sources of funding
4.3 Editorial ethics of authors
5. Response to criticisms and remarks
5.1 Integrity of the published record – corrections.
5.2 Integrity of published documentation - suspected unlawful conduct.
5.3 Encouragement of academic debate
6. Ensure a fair and adequate peer review process
6.1 Review decisions
6.2 Interaction with reviewers
6.3 Peer conduct of the reviewer
6.4 Interaction with authors
7. Editorial decision-making
7.1 Editorial processes
7.2 Editorial conflicts of interest
1.Liability and attribution.
Editors take responsibility for all contributions published in the journal. They are committed to ensuring scientific quality and editorial quality, through double-blind peer review and proper editing. The journal preserves the published articles in full and guarantees the long-term preservation of all content published through the LOCKKS system.
2. Independence and editorial integrity
2.1 Independence of editorial decisions from commercial interests
The editors of the journal are responsible for deciding whether or not the manuscript should be accepted for publication. The journal adopts the policy of open access and has no commercial interests, therefore the editorial process and decisions are independent from any commercial considerations.
2.2 Editors' relations with the journal
Editors, Board members and all contributors to the journal work on a voluntary basis. The website of the journal is hosted by the University of Milan, a public institution aimed at scientific research and teaching, which does not interfere with the freedom of choice of editors and their activities, to the extent that they are consistent with the academic mission of the newspaper.
2.3 Metrics and decision-making
The editors agree not to influence the ranking of the magazine by artificially increasing its metrics. In particular, it is ensured that the revision of the proposed articles is based on purely academic criteria and that authors are not induced to cite specific publications for non-scientific reasons.
3.Confidentiality
3.1 Author Materials
The articles to be published are selected through a double-blind peer review process. Reviewers are chosen by the editors, who are committed to protecting the confidentiality of authors' materials and remind reviewers to do the same. The proposed contributions are never shared with editors of other journals, except in agreement with the author or in case of alleged misconduct (see below). Editors do not provide guidance on the status of the proposal to anyone but the author himself. Proposal submission software prevents unauthorized access. Only in the event of an investigation of misconsuit may it be necessary to make the material available to third parties (e.g. an institutional investigation committee or other editors).
3.2 Reviewers
The journal selects the contributions to be published through a double-blind peer review process. Therefore, the identity of the reviewers is always kept hidden, unless alleged or suspected misconduct forces the journal to disclose their name to third parties.
General editorial policies
4. Transparency and ethics of publications
The journal aims to ensure that authors, readers, reviewers and all other parties involved have maximum transparency and complete and honest reporting on its work.
4.1 Authorship and responsibility
All authors of the works published in the journal take responsibility for their personalconduct, the validity of their research and the contents submitted to the journal. The authors are aware that all content of the journal is distributed under License 4.0 Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The journal recognizes both the work of the authors and of the contributors, declaring their names in the appropriate section of the article and refers, for the definition of the authorship of the role to be declared in the article, to the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Should a dispute arise over paternity, it will be resolved in the appropriate institutional for a or through other independent bodies. Editors will then act accordingly, for example by correcting the authorship of published works.
4.2 Conflict of interest and sources of funding
Authors are required to declare any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest when submitting their proposals for publication in the journal. The declaration on conflict of interest will be published at the same time as the contribution, so that readers are informed about it.
4.3 Editorial ethics of authors
Editors are committed to ensuring that all published articles give an important contribution to their field. They discourage "salami slicing" (i.e. the publication of the minimum publishable portion of a study), avoid duplication of a publication unless it is fully declared and acceptable to all (e.g., publication in a different language with cross-references), and encourage authors to place their contribution in the context of pre-existing research (e.g., to explain why this work was needed, what it adds, or why a response to previous research was needed.)
5. Response to criticism and remarks
The journal welcomes and encourages constructive criticism and scientific debate; anti-scientific positions, polemics for their own sake or with clear denigrating intentions at any level will not be accepted. The magazine reserves the right to block, delete or limit access to any user who aims their activity at spamming/flaming or does not comply with the most common principles of civil discussion.
5.1 Integrity of the published recording – corrections.
When errors in works published in the journal are reported by readers, authors or publishers, if they do not invalidate the work as a whole, a correction will be published as soon as possible. The document will be corrected with a correction date and the word "Erratum" in the title. If the error invalidates the work or substantial parts of it, the article will be withdrawn with an explanation of the reason for the retraction ("honest error"). Retired documents will be kept online and will be prominently marked in all online versions, including the PDF, for the benefit of future readers.
5.2 Integrity of published documentation - suspected unlawful conduct.
If any reader, reviewer or other should raise motivated concerns about the conduct, validity or reporting of works published in the journal, the editors will contact the authors and allow them to respond to comments. If this answer is not satisfactory, the editors will take the case to the appropriate institutional forums. The journal's editors respond to observations about misconduct in published work by organizations dealing with research integrity. Editors may decide for themselves to withdraw a document if they are convinced that a case of serious misconduct has occurred even if the outcome of the investigation by a national institution or body does not prescribe it. Editors will respond to any allegations or suspicions of misconduct in research or publication raised by readers, reviewers, or other publishers. In general, they recognize a collective responsibility in the documentation of the journal's research activity and will act whenever they become aware of possible misconduct, where possible. In case of misconduct, editors will handle the situation according to COPE Flowcharts.
5.3 Encouragement of academic debate
The journal welcomes motivated criticism of published works by reders and will consider publication of written criticism to foster scientific debate, provided that they are proposed in a timely manner. The authors of the original works will be given the opportunity to respond to further promote the debate. Any criticism that may reveal possible situations of misconduct will be thoroughly investigated even if received long after publication.
6. Ensure a fair and adequate peer review process
Editors organize and use peer review. Peer review processes are clearly explained on the authors' information page on the journal's website, where it is also indicated which parts of the journal are peer reviewed.
6.1 Review decisions
Editors may reject an article without peer review if deemed to be of poor quality or inadequate to the readers of the journal. This decision is made fairly and impartially, and the criteria are made explicit to the author. The decision not to accept a document is based solely on its academic content and is not influenced by the nature of the authors or their institution of origin.
6.2 Interaction with reviewers
Editors use appropriate reviewers for contributions considered interesting for publication, selecting experienced people and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. Editors ensure that revisions are received in a timely manner. Reviewers are notified of what is expected from them and are informed of changes in editorial policies, if any. Reviewers are asked to consider the ethical aspects of the research and publication (i.e., if they believe the research was conducted ethically or if they have suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication). Editors require reviewers to make a formal statement of conflict of interest and ask to be informed as soon as possible about such conflicts of interest so that a decision can be made on the possibility of an impartial review. Conflicts of interest may invalidate a peer review. Editors ensure the confidentiality of the material for reviewers.
6.3 Misconduct of the reviewer
Editors consider the misconduct of the auditor and pursue any breach of confidentiality, failure to declare conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), inappropriate use of confidential material or delay of the review to gain a competitive advantage. Accusations of serious misconduct by auditors, such as plagiarism, are brought to institutional forums.
6.4 Interaction with authors
The editors of the journal make it clear to the authors that the reviewing role is to provide recommendations on acceptance or rejection. Editor correspondence is usually with the corresponding author, who is responsible for involving co-authors at all stages. Editors communicate with all authors at the time of submission of the proposal and at the final acceptance stage to ensure that all authors are aware of the submission of the proposal and have approved the publication. Normally, editors report all reviewers' comments in their entirety. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, if, for example, it contains defamatory or offensive remarks.
Editors ensure that such editorial discretion is not used inappropriately to suppress uncomfortable comments. If there are good reasons to involve additional reviewers at an advanced stage of the process, it is clearly communicated to the authors. The final editorial decision and the reasons for this are clearly communicated to the authors and reviewers. If an article is rejected, editors welcome requests from authors to review. Editors, however, are not obliged to overturn their decision.
7. Editorial decision-making
Editors shall ensure that decisions on publications are as fair and impartial as possible.
7.1 Editorial processes
All editorial processes are illustrated in the information for authors on the journal's web page, where it is indicated what is expected of the authors, what types of articles are published and how they are managed by the journal. All editors have a thorough knowledge of the newspaper's policies, vision, and scope. The final responsibility for all decisionsis up to the director of the journal.
7.2 Editorial conflicts of interest
Editors are not involved in decisions about contributions in which they have a conflict of interest, for example if they work or have worked in the same institution and have collaborated with authors, if they own shares in a particular company or if they have a personal relationship with authors. The journal has defined a procedure for managing proposals submitted by editors or members of the editorial board to ensure impartial and independent management of such documents. This procedure is described in the information for authors.
