Codice etico
Analisi e diritto is a peer-reviewed journal. This statement regulates ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in it and is based on the COPE’s Codes of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/).
Duties of Authors
Originality and Plagiarism. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others this must be appropriately cited or quoted. Such quotations and citations must be listed in the Reference at the end of the article.
Multiple Publication. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, and should be listed as co-authors. Others, who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
Corresponding Author. Corresponding author is the author responsible for communicating with the journal for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper. All co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Acknowledgment of Funding Sources. Sources of funding for the research reported in the article should be duly acknowledged at the end of the article.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest. All authors should 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.
Any actual or potential conflicts of interest of those involved in the publication process in various capacities (publisher, editor-in-chief, scientific committee, editorial staff, reviewers, authors) must be disclosed, including any financial, personal or other relationships with third parties or organisations that are not more than three years old and that could inappropriately influence the work submitted. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consulting, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
Fundamental Errors in Published Works. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editors or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Contribution of Peer Review. Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions while editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Unqualified to Review or Promptness. Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review the assigned manuscript or unable to provide a prompt review should notify the editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
Confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to, or discussed with, others except as authorized by the chief editors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. There shall be no personal criticism of the author. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that had been previously reported elsewhere should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the chief editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Conflict of Interest. Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors.
General Responsibilities: Conflicts of Interest. All actual or potential conflicts of interest of those involved in the publication process in various capacities (publisher, editor-in-chief, scientific committee, editorial staff, reviewers, authors) must be disclosed, including any financial, personal or other relationships with third parties or organisations that are not more than three years old and that could inappropriately influence the work submitted. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consulting, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding.
Decision on the Publication of Articles. The editors of Analisi e diritto are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board subjected to such legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may consult with reviewers in making this decision.
Review process. The journal relies on a double-blind peer review process. Papers proposed by authors are received by the Editors, who decide whether to reject the proposal ex officio (in the case of obvious misconduct, or if the proposal’s topic is incompatible with the journal's scientific objectives) or to initiate the review process. In the latter case, the editors are assisted by the members of the Editorial Board in managing the anonymous review process, which involves the following steps: identifying the two reviewers, mediating between the reviewers and the authors while protecting their identities, and taking a final decision on the publication of the proposal. In the event of a strong disagreement between the two reviewers, the Editors and the Editorial Board may reserve the right to request a new opinion and initiate a second round of review. Contacts between editors, reviewers and authors are made by e-mail. Review forms are sent to the editors, who are responsible for storing them and ensuring the anonymity of reviewers and authors. Upon request, members of the Editorial Board may disclose the identity of reviewers and authors only at the end of the review process and for the sole purpose of establishing direct contact. Authors and reviewers should contact the Editorial Board and Editors in case of disputes or reports.
Fair Play. Manuscripts shall be evaluated solely on their intellectual merit.
Confidentiality. The editors and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
Disclosure of Unpublished materials. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used by anyone who has a view of the manuscript while handling it in his or her own research without the express written consent of the author.
