«Iurisdictio. Storia e prospettive della giustizia», open access and peer-reviewed scientific journal, has provided itself with the following Publication Ethics, in accordance with the current guidelines developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) about scientific publications. In particular, all people involved – direction, editorial staff, authors and reviewers – must know and share the following ethical principles.
Executive Board and Editorial Board Duties
Decisions on publication
Executive board is responsible for the decision on publish or not the manuscripts submitted to the journal, and consults referees in order to take this decision.
Fairness
The decision is taken considering scientific quality, significance and authenticity, as well as the full observance of journal publication policy, without discriminations concerning authors’ race gender, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, sexual orientation, political orientation.
Privacy, conflict of interests, use and disclosure restrictions
Executive board and Editorial board will not disclose any information about the manuscripts submitted to anyone but the authors, the referees and the publisher or the pressman, and will not use any information received for own researches, without the written expressed agreement of the author.
The Executive board submits the manuscript anonymously to two referees, experts of the topic and external to the Executive Board and the Editorial Board, in order to have an appropriate evaluation about its publication on the journal.
Authors’ duties
Scientific originality
Authors must compose a scientifically original work in its entirety and must properly quote the works used following the journal style guide in order to publish on the journal.
Authors must not submit works published or publishing in others journals or books. If the article will be published later on other journals or books, the Executive board’s agreement is necessary, and Author will have to specifically mention the publication on the journal «Iurisdictio. Storia e prospettive della giustizia».
Integrations
Executive board may ask to authors corrections and integrations that are appropriate, also after the anonymous evaluation of the referees. In certain cases, Executive board could communicate to the author the aforementioned anonymous evaluation. Author can express their observations and objection about this, and the Executive board will decide on it.
Executive board can execute merely editorial modifications after the first correction of the draft, in order to keep the publishing homogeneity of the journal.
Authorship of the essay
Authorship of the essay must clearly result: can be considered coauthor only who has given a substantial effort in order to realize the essay. Every substantial effort given from other people in any part of the research must be declared. In case of work with multiple authors, every part of the work must be clearly linked to every respective coauthor.
Conflicts of interest
Authors must not have any conflict of interest that could have conditioned the results obtained or the interpretations proposed. Authors must also indicate any financing institute or any project that supported the development of the essay.
Corrections to any mistake in the essay
If an author finds relevant mistake or inaccuracy in his essay, he must inform promptly the journal and provide all the necessary information in order to report all the deserved corrections at the bottom or in the appendix of the essay. Author must also provide when the warning comes from the Executive board of the journal, except as otherwise agreed.
Referees’ duties
Contribution to the editorial decision
Peer-review is a procedure that helps the Executive board to evaluate the submitted essays and helps the author to improve his work.
Observance of deadlines
The referee who feels to be inadequate in the work assigned or knows that he will not be able to reply within the indicated times must promptly inform of it the Executive board.
Fairness and objectivity
The peer-review must be completed in a right and objective way. Referees have to motivate properly their evaluations about the article submitted to them. Every personal consideration about the author is considered inappropriate.
Bibliographic recommendations
The referee is invited to indicate exactly the bibliographical data concerning fundamental works that the author has ignored. The referee, moreover, must report possible similarities or affinities between the article submitted to him and other works.
Conflict of interests and disclosure
Reserved information and indications received during the peer-review procedure are considered as confidential: they can’t be used for personal purpose. The referee must reject any essays which might represent a conflict of interest caused by a previous specific relationship of collaboration or competition with the author (that is anonymous, but individuated through a deduction) and/or with the respective academic institute.