Peer review policy

The papers in collective volumes and the monographs are subjected to a blind peer review. 

For collective volumes, it is the responsibility of the Editors of a collective volume to invite reviewers who are expert in the topics of each manuscript submitted for publication.

As for monographs, it is the responsibility of the Chief Editor, in collaboration with the Co-Editors and the Scientific Committee, to invite suitable reviewers.

Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Author/s.
  2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. The Reviewers should notify the Editors if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; Reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the Series asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The Reviewers should follow Studi AISV instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them unless there are good reasons not to. The Reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The Reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
  4. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.  Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Book’s Editors may want to submit a paper to their issue. In these cases, the series Editor will handle the whole review process in order to guarantee the fairness of the decision.
  5. Promptness: The Reviewers should respond in a reasonable time frame. The Reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. If a Reviewer feels he/she cannot complete reviewing the manuscript within the stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the Editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another Reviewer.