Editorial Principles

1. Accountability and responsibility for journal content

The journal’s editors take responsibility for all works published on Sound Stage Screen (SSS). They are committed to guaranteeing both scientific and editorial quality through double-blind peer review and careful editing. The journal preserves the entirety of the published articles and guarantees long-time preservation of all published content by using the LOCKKS Program.

2. Editorial independence and integrity
2.1 Independence of editorial decisions from commercial interests

SSS editors make their decisions about proposals submitted to the journal on the basis of academic merit alone, and take full responsibility for their decisions.
SSS embraces an open access policy and has no commercial interests. The journal’s editorial processes and the editors’ decisions are independent of any commercial consideration.

2.2 Editors’ relationship to the journal publisher

The editors of SSS work on a volunteer basis. The journal’s website is hosted by the Università degli Studi di Milano, a research public institution which does not interfere with SSS editors’ freedom of choice and activities, as long as their work is coherent with the scholarly mission of the journal.

2.3 Journal metrics and decision-making

SSS editors do not attempt to influence the journal’s ranking by artificially increasing any journal metric. In particular, 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

SSS selects papers to be published through double-blind peer review. Peer reviewers are chosen by the editors, who strive to protect the confidentiality of the authors’ material. 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. SSS web-based submission system prevents unauthorized 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

SSS selection process through double-blind peer review. 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.

4. General editorial policies

SSS 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 SSS 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 4.0 international – CC-BY).
Should any authorship dispute arise, it will be resolved at the appropriate institutional level or through other appropriate independent bodies. SSS editors will then act on the findings, for example by correcting authorship in published works.

4.2 Conflicts of interest

Authors are required to declare any relevant financial or non-financial conflict of interest at the moment they submit their papers for publication on SSS. Declarations of conflicting interests are published alongside the paper so that readers are informed about them.

5. Academic debate

SSS welcomes and encourages criticism and debate.

5.1 Ensuring integrity of the published record: corrections

When genuine errors in works published on SSSare 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: suspect of research or publication misconduct

If serious concerns are raised by readers, reviewers, or others, about the conduct, validity, or reporting of works published on SSS, the editors of the journal will initially contact the authors and allow them to respond to the concerns. If the response is considered unsatisfactory, editors will take the matter to the appropriate institutional level. Editors can themselves decide to retract a paper if they are convinced that serious misconduct has happened even if an investigation by an institution or national body does not recommend it. Editors will respond to all allegations or suspicions of research or publication misconduct raised by readers, reviewers, or other editors. In general, they acknowledge collective responsibility for the research record of the journal and will act every time they become aware of potential misconduct, where possible.

5.3 Encouragement of scholarly debate

SSS welcomes readers’ criticisms to works published by the journal and will consider publishing them to foster scientific debate, as long as 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. Ensuring a fair and appropriate peer review process

SSS editors organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. The peer review process is clearly explained in the information for authors’ page on the journal’s website, where it is also indicated which parts of the journal are peer reviewed.

6.1 Decision whether to review

SSS editors may reject a paper without peer review when it is deemed unsuitable for the journal’s readers or is of poor quality. This decision is made in a fair and unbiased way and the criteria used to make this decision are made explicit to the author. The decision not to send a paper for peer review is only based on the academic content of the paper, and it is not influenced by the nature of the authors or their host institution.

6.2 Interaction with peer reviewers

SSS editors use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest. SSS editors ensure that reviews are received in a timely manner. Peer reviewers are told what is expected of them and are informed about any changes in editorial policies. Peer reviewers are asked to assess research and publication ethics issues (i.e., whether they think the research was done and reported ethically, or if they have any suspicions of plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or redundant publication). SSS editors have a policy to request a formal conflict of interest declaration from peer reviewers and ask peer reviewers to inform them about any such conflict of interest at the earliest opportunity so that they can make a decision on whether an unbiased review is possible. Certain conflicts of interest may disqualify a peer reviewer.

SSS editors stress confidentiality of the material to peer reviewers.

6.3 Reviewer misconduct

SSS editors take reviewer misconduct seriously and pursue any allegation of breach of confidentiality, non-declaration of conflicts of interest (financial or non-financial), 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

SSS editors make it clear to authors that the role of the peer reviewer is to provide recommendations on acceptance or rejection. Correspondence from editors is usually with the corresponding author, who have the responsibility to involve co-authors at all stages. SSS editors communicate with all authors at first submission and at final acceptance stage to ensure all authors are aware of the submission and have approved the publication. Normally, the editors pass on all peer reviewers’ comments in their entirety. However, in exceptional cases, it may be necessary to exclude parts of a review, if, for example, it contains libellous or offensive remarks.

SSS editors guarantee that such editorial discretion is not inappropriately used to suppress inconvenient comments. Should there be good reasons to involve additional reviewers at a late stage in the process, it is clearly communicated to authors. The final editorial decision and reasons for this are clearly communicated to authors and reviewers. If a paper is rejected, the editors welcome appeals from authors. Editors, however, are not obliged to overturn their decision.

7. Editorial decision-making

SSS 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 main editors.


Open Access Policy

The journal provides immediate open access to its contents on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a wider global exchange of knowledge. Open Access Policy is based on rules of Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI).



SSS articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0). You are free to share (copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format), adapt (remix, transform, and build upon the material) for any purpose, even commercially, under the following terms: attribution (you must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made) and no additional restrictions (you may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits).

Preprint and postprint version of the articles can be archived anywhere with the same license.



The University of Milan has an archival arrangement with the National Central Libraries of Florence and Rome within the national project Magazzini Digitali.

The journal has enabled the PKP PN (Preservation Network) plugin, in order to preserve digital contents through LOCKSS (Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe)  project


Copyright Policy

Authors allow Sound Stage Screen the right to publish for the first time their work within 1 (one) year from acceptance, and the perpetual right to distribute the work free of charge by any means and in any parts of the world, including the communication to the public through the journal website. Authors retain the right to create derivative works and to reproduce, distribute, execute or publicly display their work at conferences and presentations, lectures, and in any other professional activity. Authors retain the right to disseminate their work (submitted, accepted, or published version) as open access, through personal website or through an institutional archive or other repository of the authors’ choice without embargo, after publication on Sound Stage Screen.


Article Processing and Submission Charge

No payments are required, as the journal does not charge authors for submission nor APCs (article processing charges).



Editors have a duty to act promptly in case of errors and misconducts, both proven and alleged. This duty extends to both published and unpublished papers. In case such as errors in articles or in the publication process, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, appropriate steps will be taken, following the recommendations, guidelines and flowcharts from di COPE.  Corrections will happen with due prominence, including the publication of an erratum (errors from the publication process), corrigendum (errors from the Author(s)) or, in the most severe cases, the retraction of the affected work. 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.


Privacy Statement

The names and email addresses entered in this journal site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes of this journal and will not be made available for any other purpose or to any other party.


Declaration on Artificial Intelligence

Sound Stage Screen (SSS) acknowledges the importance of artificial intelligence innovations understanding the challenges and opportunities they entail.

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 paper the author(s) used [TOOL/SERVICE NAME] on [DD/MM/YYYYY] using the search terms: [SEARCH TERMS] in order to [REASON]. After using this tool/service, the author(s) have 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.

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



[adapted from Sabine Kleinert and Elizabeth Wager, "Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors," in Promoting Research Integrity in a Global Environment, eds. Tony Mayer and Nicholas Steneck (Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2011), 317-328]