This statement is based on COPE’s (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. It is necessary for all parties involved (authors, editors, publishers, and reviewers) to be aware of and share the following ethical requirements.
Decisions on publication
The managing editor, the editorial board, and the guest editors are responsible for deciding whether or not to publish submitted articles. The editorial board may refer to the journal’s scientific committee and is bound by the requirements of current laws on libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
Fairness
The editors evaluate articles proposed for publication based on their scientific content without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation of the authors. The decision of the editorial board members to accept or reject a manuscript for publication in Lo Sguardo is based only on the importance, originality, and clarity of the paper, as well as the validity of the study and its relevance to the interests of the journal.
The peer review process is conducted in an impartial, unbiased, and timely manner. The ownership of the journal and the publishing house that is responsible for its publication cannot interfere with the editorial board’s decisions regarding the choice of articles to publish. All steps in the review process are accomplished using the protocol set forth in the journal’s editorial practice to ensure the impartiality of the final decision and to ensure that submitted materials remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.
Procedures for publicizing post-publication discussion and for handling any changes and corrections to published articles
The editors are willing to accept well-founded criticism about published work and have no preclusions with respect to the possibility of publishing research that challenges previously published work. It is also part of their duties to publish corrections, clarifications, and retractions where there is a need. Authors must always be given the opportunity to respond to criticism, and the journal has no preclusion against studies that propose negative results.
Confidentiality
The editor and any member of the editorial board or scientific committee must refrain from disclosing any information about the texts submitted for review by the journal to anyone other than the corresponding author, referee, prospective referee, editorial advisors, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Conflict of interest and disclosure
Unpublished materials contained in a text submitted to the journal should not be used in research by the editor or a member of the editorial board without the express written consent of the author.
Contribution to editorial decision-making
The practice of peer review helps the editorial staff make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, can also help the author improve his or her text.
Adherence to timelines
A referee who does not feel adequate for the proposed task or who knows that he or she cannot do the reading in the required time is required to notify the editorial office promptly.
Confidentiality
Any text assigned for reading should be considered confidential. Therefore, such texts should not be discussed with others without explicit permission from the editors.
Objectivity
The peer review procedure must be conducted objectively. Any personal comments about the author are inappropriate. Referees are required to give adequate reasons for their judgments.
Indication of sources
Referees undertake to accurately indicate the bibliographic details of key works that may have been overlooked by the author. The referee must also point out to the editor any similarities or overlaps of the paper received for reading with other works known to him or her.
Conflict of interest and disclosure
Confidential information or guidance obtained during the peer review process must be considered confidential and may not be used for personal purposes. Referees are required not to accept for reviewing articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous collaborative or competitive relationships with the author and/or his or her home institution.
Access and preservation of data
Authors of original research must also make available the sources or data on which the research is based so that they can be retained for a reasonable period of time after publication and possibly be made accessible to others who wish to use the work. False or inaccurate claims constitute ethically unacceptable behavior.
Originality and plagiarism
Authors must guarantee the absolute originality of submitted texts, and, in the case of using the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately indicated or quoted.
Multiple, repetitive and/or competing publications
The author should not publish articles describing the same research in more than one journal. Simultaneously submitting the same paper to multiple journals constitutes unethical and unacceptable behavior.
Indication of sources
The author should always provide the correct indication of sources and contributions mentioned in the article.
Authorship of the work
The authorship of the work must be correctly attributed, and all those who have made significant contributions to the conception, organization, implementation, and reworking of the research underlying the article must be indicated as co-authors. If other people participated significantly in some stage of the research, their contribution should be explicitly acknowledged. In the case of contributions written by several hands, the author submitting the text to the journal is required to state that he or she has correctly stated the names of all other co-authors, that he or she has obtained their approval of the final version of the article and their consent to publication in the journal.
Conflict of interest and disclosure
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or other conflict of interest that could be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of financial support for the project must be indicated
Errors in published articles
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her published work, he or she is obligated to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and work with the editor to withdraw or correct the text.
Starting with issue IX (2, 2012), the journal Lo Sguardo provides for a section, called “Contributions,” which is intended, as well as the “Articles” section (which consists of essays by direct invitation of the editors) to publish original papers reviewed in the double-blind peer review mode with a corresponding referee system.
For each issue under publication, the calls for papers may be divided into thematic sub-sections ranging from a minimum number of 1 to a maximum of 6, related to the sections provided in the issue under elaboration. Their theme will be determined at the sole discretion of the issue’s editors during the editorial definition of the upcoming issue.
Call for papers are constantly available (until the deadline set for submission) at www.losguardo.net, in Italian and English and translated , when deemed necessary, also into French, German or Spanish. The maximum and/or minimum number of contributions scheduled for publication for each call for papers will be determined by the editors of each issue, in agreement with the editorial staff.
Authors who wish to submit a contribution for submission to double-blind peer review should strictly follow the directions described on this page: https://www.losguardo.net/it/normativa-call-for-papers/
The call for papers of Lo Sguardo may provide for two different modes of proposal:
The referencing system consists of the following steps:
Receipt: Files containing proposed articles will be received by the editors at the appropriate OJS platform. The journal editors and issue editors are in charge of initiating the refereeing process by sorting the articles to the reviewers. For communications regarding the progress of the process, the editors will refer to the address given by the author in the e-mail via the journal’s OJS platform.
First and second evaluations: made by anonymous reviewers chosen from among PhDs, researchers, and tenured university professors specializing in the subjects in the subject matter of the call for papers. Opinions are rendered on the basis of content and formal criteria by asking the reviewer to fill out the journal’s reference form. Where necessary, in the judgment of the second reviewers and when it is necessary to select a specific number of contributions, articles may be submitted to a third and unquestionable opinion.
Third evaluation: will be rendered by university professors who are specialists in the subjects in the subject matter of the call for papers, based on content and formal criteria. The opinion of the third reviewer will be unquestionable for the purpose of acceptance of the contribution.
The evaluations will be sent by the reviewers to the editor-in-chief in written form. Through the OJS platform, the issue editors will contact the authors at the email address of receipt, indicating to them the outcome of the review (with opinion accepted/accepted with request for revisions/not accepted), complete with the anonymous summary judgments of the two/three reviewers and the dates of receipt of the judgments.
According to the reviewers’ advice, editorial or content changes that do not affect the originality of the papers may be requested from the authors of the contributions.
Accepted contributions will be published in Lo Sguardo along with the dates of receipt and reference.
Reviewers’ opinions will be communicated (for both accepted and non-accepted contributions) in an exclusively private form, to the e-mail address reported through the OJS platform.