il Nome nel testo

Ethic guidelines

– Ethics statement –

Il Nome Nel Testo - Edizioni ETS

 

Contents

Introduction

  1. General responsibilities: Conflict of interest
  2. Publication and authorship
    • Authorship
    • Plagiarism and Self-plagiarism
    • Data
    • Funding organizations
    • References
    • Retraction and Emendation
  3. Peer review / responsibility for and commitments of the reviewers
    • Goal
    • Review Process Steps
    • Scientific standards
    • Objectivity
    • Promptness
    • Confidentiality
  4. Editorial responsibilities
    • Accountability
    • Responsibility on quality
    • Confidentiality
    • Feedback and improvement
    • Corrections and retractions
  5. Publishing ethics issues
  6. Unethical Behaviour

 

Introduction

Edizioni ETS and the Editors-in-chief of the journal il Nome nel testo (= iNnt) take their respective duties to prevent any kind of publication malpractice. The publisher, the Editor and the peer reviewers, play each their part and are responsible for the compliance with the following statements of publication ethics, inspired by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Code (see the Core Practices at https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).

 

  1. General responsibilities: Conflict of interest

Any actual or potential conflicts of interest from everyone involved in the publication process (Publisher, Editors-in-chief, Scientific Committee, Editorial staff, 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 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
    • Authorship

All authors should made substantial contributions to all 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.

Authorship must be correctly attributed; all those who have given a substantial contribution to the design, organization, and accomplishment of the research the article is based on, must be indicated as Co-Authors. The respective roles of each co-author should be described in a footnote. The statement that all authors have approved the final version should be included in the disclosure.

 

2.2 Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

Authors must clearly state that the submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or a thought explanation has been provided before the submission process). Since no proposal gets published without significant revision, earlier dissemination in conference proceedings or working papers does not preclude consideration for publication, but Authors are expected to fully disclose publication/dissemination of the material in other closely related publications, so that the overlap can be evaluated by the journal Editors-in-chief and the Editorial board.

 

2.3 Data

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

 

2.4 Funding organizations

The Editors-in-chief will give serious and careful consideration to suggestions of cases in which, due to possible conflict of interest, an Author’s work should not be reviewed by a specific scholar.

In addition, they are requested to make explicit reference either to funding organization(s) or research programs.

 

2.5 References

For this kind of information see the style sheet of the journal.

 

2.6 Retraction and Emendation

Authors will promptly notify the Editors-in-chief of any mistake or error in their publication, both during the review process and after publication. A corrigendum or an addendum may be published in forthcoming issues. Authors acknowledge that the Publisher may retract the paper in case of unethical behaviors (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent data, etc.).

 

By means of the peer-review procedure, reviewers assist the Editors-in-chief and the Editorial board in taking decisions on the articles submitted. They are expected to offer the Authors suggestions as to possible adjustments aimed at improving their submission. The review process adheres to the standard anonymous peer review (double-blind) procedure for all essays submitted to the journal. For contributions submitted to the annual conference, the review process unfolds across multiple stages. Initially, the Journal’s Editorial board and conference organizers assess a detailed abstract of around 2200 characters, ensuring it is substantial and specific. This stage focuses on either accepting or rejecting proposals in their entirety. Contributions presented at the conference serve as the foundation for subsequent papers submitted within the allocated timeframe for anonymous review.

 

3.2 Review Process Steps

Manuscripts submitted by authors are received by the Editors-in-chief, who decide whether to outright reject the submission (in case of evident misconduct, a focus incompatible with the journal’s scientific objectives, or severe and obvious formal inadequacy) or to initiate the review process. In the latter scenario, the Editors-in-chief are supported by members of the Editorial board in overseeing the anonymous review process. This includes selecting two reviewers, facilitating communication between reviewers and authors while maintaining their anonymity, and making a final decision on whether to publish the submission. If there is significant disagreement between reviewers, the Editors-in-chief and Editorial board may seek an additional opinion, initiating a second round of review. Communication among Editors-in-chief, reviewers, and authors takes place via email. Review forms are sent to reviewers, received, and securely retained by the Editors-in-chief. Furthermore, the Editors-in-chief ensure the anonymity of all parties involved in the double-blind review process. If needed, members of the Editorial board may reveal the identities of reviewers and authors only after the review process is completed, and strictly for direct communication purposes.

Authors and reviewers are encouraged to contact the Editors-in-chief in cases of disputes or concerns.

 

3.3 Scientific standards

The reviewers are provided with guidelines by the Editors-in-chief in collaboration with the Editorial board. 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.

Given the multidisciplinary nature of this research, the Editorial board enlists an appropriate number of external reviewers. These reviewers are experts in various literatures, equipped with the skills and methodologies necessary to study the subject from diverse perspectives (historical-cultural, critical-literary, linguistic-philological, psychological, anthropological, etc.). The final drafts of the articles will be submitted to these reviewers for their evaluation and approval.

The reviewers must confidentially notify the Editors-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.

 

3.4 Objectivity

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective judgement. An evaluation grid is provided as a template to support them in the review, but they can integrate the form with any other information or suggestion that may be relevant. Any comment must be done in a collaborative way and from an objective point of view. Reviewers should clearly motivate their comments and keep in mind the Golden Rule of Reviewing: “Review for others as you would have other review for you”.

 

3.5 Promptness

Reviewers should inform the Editors-in-chief if circumstances arise that prevent from submitting a timely review. Reviewers must not accept articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to previous contributions or to a competition with a disclosed author (or with an author they believe to have identified).

 

3.6 Confidentiality

Peer reviewers’ identities are protected. On their turn, they are committed to handle submitted material in confidence. Any confidential information obtained during the peer review process should not be used for other purposes.

 

4.1 Accountability

The Editors-in-chief are aware to be accountable for everything published in the journal. Therefore, they have processes in place to assure the quality of the material to be published and they ensure that peer review at the 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, scientific and editorial board members about ways of improving peer review and publishing processes for the journal.

 

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 Editors-in-chief always encourage 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 Editorial board 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.

 

4.3. Confidentiality

In any case, all material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review. Reviewers’ identity will be protected and kept confidential as well. They may be made public in their entirety to comply with transparency requirements.

 

The Scientific Committee is consulted periodically to gauge his opinions about the running of the journal, informing it of any changes to the journal policies and identifying future challenges.

 

 

4.5 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.

 

 

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-in-chief to handle potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions. Moreover, the Publisher works in close co-operation with its Editors-in-chief and Peer Reviewers 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.

 

Misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editors-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 Editors-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 Editors-in-chief.