Edizioni ETS and the Editorial Board of MEFISTO take their respective duties to prevent any kind of publication malpractice. The publisher, the journal editor, and the peer reviewers, play each their part and are responsible for the compliance with the following statements of publication ethics.

Contents

• General responsibilities
• Publication and authorship
• Peer review
• Editorial responsibilities
• Publishing ethics issues
• Unethical behaviour

 

0. General responsibilities: Conflict of interest

Any actual or potential conflicts of interest from everyone involved in the publication process (Editors, Editorial Board Members, Reviewers, Authors) must be disclosed – including any financial, personal or other relationships with other people or organizations within three years of beginning the submitted work that could inappropriately influence, or be perceived to influence, their work.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. If there is no conflict of interest this should be stated. This should be listed at the end of the text, after any acknowledgements and just before the Reference list, under a subheading “Conflict of interest statement”.

 

1. Publication and authorship

1.1. Authorship

All authors should have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted.

 

1.2. Self-plagiarism

Authors must clearly state that the submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or a thorough explanation has been provided in ‘Comments for the Editor’ at 1^st step of the submission process).

 

1.3. Data

Authors shall provide access to data associated with their research, on reasonable request. Authors are requested to maintain records of the data and deposit them if allowed.

 

1.4. Funding organisations

Authors are requested to disclose any potential or actual conflict of interest. In addition, they are requested to make explicit reference either to funding organisation(s) or research programmes.

 

1.5. References

Authors must carefully quote and include in their references all, and only, the sources they refer to. All sources authors are drawing on must also be clearly included.

 

1.6. Authors as future reviewers

Authors acknowledge that they may be selected as anonymous reviewers in future issues after an embargo of two years.

 

1.7. Retraction

Authors will promptly notify the journal Editor-in-chief of any mistake or error in their publication, both during the review process and after publication. An errata corrige or an addendum may be published in forthcoming issues. Authors acknowledge that the Editorial Board may retract the paper in case of unethical behaviour (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent data, etc.).

 

2. Peer review / responsibility for and commitments of the reviewers

2.1 Scientific standards

The reviewers are provided by the Editors with guidelines on everything that is expected of them. A particular attention must be paid to individuate unethical behaviour, misuse or misinterpretation of sources or data, and other malpractices such as redundant publication and plagiarism. The reviewers must confidentially notify the Editor in chief of any substantial resemblance to other scientific papers (essay, submitted paper, chapter in a book, book, review article, etc…).

In any case, reviewers are required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

 

2.2. Objectivity

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective judgement. An evaluation grid is provided as a template to support them in the review process, but they should fell free to integrate the form with any other information or suggestion that may be relevant.

 

2.3. Promptness

While keeping a high quality of the review process, the reviewers’ comments should be as prompt as possible. Reviewers should inform the Editor if circumstances arise that prevent them from submitting a timely review.

 

2.4. Confidentiality

Peer reviewers’ identities are protected. On their turn, they are committed to handle submitted material in confidence.

3. Editorial responsibilities

3.1. Accountability

The Editors are aware to be accountable for everything published in the journal. Therefore, they have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish and, in particular, they ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely, and that all papers have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. However, they actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members about ways of improving peer review and publishing processes for the journal.

The Directors’ work is supported by the Executive Board, a body responsible for ensuring the scientific quality of each published article. The  Executive  Board, composed of individuals of proven reliability and expertise, proposes editorial ideas, thematic focuses, and oversees the production process of each issue. It selects editorial proposals and advises on the choice of reviewers; however, all of its members are excluded from submitting papers (other than reviews) or being co-authors of papers submitted to the Editorial Office. 

The Editorial Team benefits from the presence of a Managing Editor, whose role is to connect the Leadership with the Executive Board and the Scientific Committee (or Editorial Board), as well as to maintain relationships with both authors and reviewers, who may be selected by the Scientific Committee.

The  Scientific Committee (or Editorial Board) is not directly involved with the submission process and the internal handling of individual issues of the Journal. This enables the Editorial Office and the Executive Board to mobilize members of the Scientific Committee for the blind review process, selecting them based on their specific areas of expertise. Papers are rigorously blindly peer-reviewed by two anonymous reviewers per article. Reviewers may be chosen among the Scientific Committee but not among the other Editorial groups, except the Editorial Office but only in particular and motivated cases.

The choice of the thematic Focus, which traditionally characterizes each issue of the Journal, may be suggested by external authors or by any member of the editorial groups. The responsibility for the thematic focus may fall on internal members of the Editorial Office, who, however, are excluded from submitting an original article (both within and outside the thematic focus).

Reviewers’ Decision. The Managing Editor, who manages the submitted articles and oversees the review process, is required to conduct a preliminary examination of the papers to ensure their scientific rigor. Upon receiving the reviewers’ opinions, the Managing Editor may, after consulting with the Director and the Executive Board, decide not to follow or modify the reviewers’ recommendations in order to respect the editorial policy established by the Directors. 

3.2. Responsibility on quality

The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication is based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal. In order to guarantee the quality of the published papers, the Editor always encourages reviewers to provide detailed comments to motivate their decisions. These comments are anonymously sent to the author of the paper. The comments will help the committee decide the outcome of the paper, and will help justify this decision for the author. Moreover, if the paper is accepted, the comments should guide the author in making revisions for a final manuscript.

 

3.3. Confidentiality

In any case, all material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.
Reviewers identities will be protected and kept confidential as well.

3.4. Feedback and improvement

The editorial board members are consulted periodically to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.

 

3.5. Corrections and retractions

The Editorial board will promote and support the publication of corrections and will adopt any reasonable measure to respond to ethical guidelines infringement.

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism may lead to retraction. Undisclosed conflict of interest may lead to retraction, expression of concern, or issue of correction, depending on how much the conflict of interest has altered the research and findings as well as the review process. In other cases, a change of authorship may be issued.

 

4. Publishing ethics issues

Edizioni ETS is committed to protect intellectual property and copyright, and respect privacy and personal data (especially for authors and peer reviewers). Edizioni ETS is alert to intellectual property issues and works with its Editors to handle potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Moreover, the Publisher works in close co-operation with its Editors and Peer Reviewers in order to foster editorial independence, and to guarantee transparency and integrity in peer-review process, particularly with respect to conflicts of interest.

Edizioni ETS always precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards, and is willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

The Direttore Responsabile is held responsible in front of the law for any infringement of the law or of the Ethical and Professional rules of the Ordine dei giornalisti.

 

5. Unethical Behaviour

Misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editor in chief by anyone, at any time. Sufficient information or evidence has to be provided in order to initiate and support investigation. Anonymous or vague allegations will not be considered.

Confidential investigation may take place upon initial decision of the Editor in chief. If, in the light of a full documentary evidence, a fraudulent conduct is ascertained, the outcome may vary, depending on the severity of the violation: minor infringements and honest errors might have minor consequences (the author is informed of his/her misunderstanding of the Journal’s Ethic Guidelines); serious breaches might be notified with more formal letters, with public expressions of concern (with or without details on misconduct), with retraction or withdrawal of the publication. An embargo on any form of participation to the journal may be issued. Particularly severe infringements (such as, but not limited to, fraudulence, calumny, forge) may be brought before the Italian law by the Direttore Responsabile.