Codice Etico

CODE OF ETHICS

Edizioni ETS, the scientific directors and the editorial committee of Naturalmente Scienza assume their respective responsibilities and duties to avoid any form of negligence or editorial illegality. The publisher, the scientific directors, the editorial board and the reviewers each carry out their own role and are responsible for ensuring compliance with the following editorial ethics statements, inspired by the Code of Ethics of the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics, see “Core” section Practices” of the site https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).

The journal is divided into the following sections: IN PRIMO PIANO, which deals with topical issues (such as the environmental emergency, the debate on nuclear power and the debate on artificial intelligence); FOCUS, which deals with monographic topics (such as the ecological transition plan, marine protected areas, taxonomy, overpopulation); FARE SCUOLA, which is dedicated to the ways and means of doing science with children and young people. There are two naturalistic sections: RITRATTO DI FAMIGLIA, which presents a zoological family group as an example of animal diversity, and UNO SCATTO ALLA NATURA, which comments on important photographic documents. The magazine also contains CONTRIBUTI of various kinds and RECENSIONI. The IN PRIMO PIANO, FOCUS and FARE SCUOLA sections are are fully subjected to an anonymous peer review process (single blind peer review).

For the editorial production process, Naturalmente Scienza relies on three different bodies: the Editorial Board, the Editorial Committee and the Scientific Committee. The editors are responsible for the entire editorial process, the transparency of the publication methods and the composition of the issue summaries. The Editorial Board ensures that all those involved in the review and production process fulfil their obligations. Editors are responsible for the initial evaluation of submissions, which are judged on the completeness of the material provided, scientific integrity, and compatibility with the journal's scientific objectives. Only the Editors can decide whether to initiate the review process, to skip it (in very rare cases, due to the author's exceptional prestige), or to reject the proposal ex officio. The Editors liaise with the Editorial Board to ensure a transparent review process, linguistic appropriateness of submissions, and compliance with the journal's editorial standards. Members of the Editorial Board may not be involved in the peer review process as reviewers, except in rare cases where such members are considered to be the foremost experts on a particular topic. The Editors liaise with the Editorial Board to ensure a transparent review process, linguistic appropriateness of submissions, and adherence to the journal's editorial standards. Editorial Board members may not be involved in the peer review process as reviewers, except in rare cases where such members are considered to be the foremost experts on a particular topic. In such cases, which the Editors and the Editorial Board are committed to limiting, the other members of the Editorial Board will manage the communication with the author(s), protecting their identity and that of the reviewer; if the proposal is published, any coincidence will be stated on the first page of the paginated article. Its members are never involved in the editorial process of the issues. If they are asked to act as anonymous reviewers, the Editorial Board exercises its function as in other cases.

 

1. Conflict of interest

Any conflict of interest, real or potential, involving anyone involved in the publication process (publisher, editor, scientific committee, editorial board, reviewers, authors), including any financial, personal or other relationship with other persons or organizations that occurred within three years prior to the start of the submitted work and that may improperly influence the work.

In this sense it is necessary to include in each article a declaration on the non-existence of conflict of interest and insert it at the end of the text, after any acknowledgments and before the bibliography, under the heading "Conflict of interest declaration".

 

2. Authorship

All authors must contribute substantially to the conception and design of the study or to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; the drafting of the article or its critical revision; to the final approval of the version to be presented. The authorship of the work must be correctly attributed: all those who offered a fundamental contribution to the planning, organization and implementation of the research on which the article is based must be indicated as co-authors.

Authors must expressly declare that the contribution has not been previously published or proposed to another journal or series (or that its theoretical intentions have not been shared with other editorial operations before the submission process). Since no proposal is published without significant corrections, prior disclosure in conference proceedings or working papers does not preclude the possibility of publication. However, authors are required to disclose any diffusion or dissemination of the material in other closely related publications, so that the overlap can be assessed by the editors and scientific committee of the journal.

Authors will promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief of the journal of any errors or inaccuracies in their publication, either during the revision process or after publication. A corrigendum or addendum may be published in subsequent issues. Authors acknowledge the Editor's right to withdraw contributions in the event of inappropriate conduct (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent data, etc.).

 

3. Review process

Through the peer review process, reviewers offer their support to the scientific directors, the editorial board and the scientific committee in making a decision on the submitted contributions. The reviewers are indicated by the scientific directors after consulting the scientific committee.

Reviewers are required to provide an objective opinion. They are provided with a template assessment rubric to guide them through the review process, but you can supplement the form with any other relevant information or suggestions. Comments must be made with collaborative intent and from an objective point of view. Reviewers must clearly justify comments and can offer authors any suggestions to improve their contributions.

Auditors must inform directors if circumstances arise that prevent them from submitting the audit on time. Reviewers should not accept articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous contributions.

The identities of the reviewers are protected, since Naturalmente Scienza adopts the single blind review method, in which the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. In turn, reviewers are obliged to treat the submitted material with confidentiality. Any confidential information received during the review process must not be used for any other purpose.

 

4. Editorial responsibilities

The directors are aware that they are responsible for everything published in Naturalmente Scienza. Accordingly, they take the necessary measures to ensure the quality of published material and ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial and timely, as well as the quality and relevance of the choice of reviewers. In any case, the directors are ready to accommodate the opinions of authors, readers, reviewers, members of the scientific and editorial committee regarding ways of implementing the review and publication processes.

 

5. Issues of editorial ethics

Edizioni ETS is committed to protecting intellectual property and copyright, as well as respecting privacy and personal data (especially with regard to authors and reviewers). Edizioni ETS is active in monitoring intellectual property issues and works with magazine managers to manage potential violations of rules and conventions. The publisher also works in close cooperation with editors and reviewers to promote editorial independence and to ensure the transparency and integrity of the review process, with particular regard to conflicts of interest. In any case, Edizioni ETS prevents commercial needs from compromising intellectual and ethical criteria and is willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies if necessary.

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.

Misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editor-in-chief by anyone, at any time. Sufficient information or evidence must 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 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 Editor-in-chief.