Policies and Ethical Code

Paideutika pursues the following editorial, cultural, and political guidelines: it promotes research inspired by principles of pluralism and ethical-cultural responsibility; encourages free debates and freedom of thought, including dissent, driven by seriousness and scientific rigour; guarantees the defense of human dignity; and is free from any form of discrimination as well as cultural and social prejudice.

Before submitting their contribution through the OJS platform, it is recommended that authors review the journal's Aims and Ethical Code, which is inspired by the Ethical Guidelines of C.O.P.E.

To submit their proposals, authors must create a personal account on the platform's website, through which they can monitor the progress of the peer-review process.

Proposals that do not comply with the editorial guidelines will not be taken into consideration.

Paideutika subjects each contribution to an initial editorial review, conducted by the Heads of the evaluation process, the Editor-in-Chief, and, when necessary, the Editorial Committee. During this phase, the evaluation is conducted to assure the presence of a minimum level of scientific quality, relevance to the journal's aims and compliance with editorial standards. In case of rejection, the reasons will be explained and the author will be invited to adjust their proposal in accordance with the journal's aims and/or editorial standards.

The anonymous contribution is then subjected to a double-blind peer review process. The reviewers involved in the process, who remain anonymous, are at least two and they are chosen based on their expertise in the main research field or methodology pertaining the content of the contribution. The main evaluation criteria are:

• interest and consistency of the topic with the journal's aims;
• topic relevance and originality;
• scientific rigour;
• coherence and clarity of the arguments;
• quality of the scientific and critical literature on the subject,
• writing correctness and clarity;

The review of the article by the reviewers includes comments and suggestions for the author and, separately, for the Editorial Board. The outcome of the review process can be: accepted, accepted with revisions or rejected.

In line with ANVUR's guidelines, the Journal evaluates the publication of articles by non-tenured researchers (who do not access the VQR) in a reduced proportion compared to articles by tenured researchers. Therefore, accepted articles with positive reviews may be archived and published gradually while always maintaining the same proportion. For the same reasons, the translation of the article into English may be requested.

Authors wishing to withdraw their contribution must promptly notify the Editorial Office through the OJS platform or via following the email address: rivista@paideutika.it.

 

Timing

Paideutika adheres to the following timelines:

• initial editorial review by the Editorial Committee and subsequent rejection or assignment to reviewers: within four weeks of the proposal;
• first round of anonymous evaluation: within four weeks since reviewer assignment,
• communication of the evaluation outcome to the author: within one week of the reviewers' submission;
• submission of the final text by the author: within two weeks of the communication of the evaluation outcome;
• final decision on publication: within two weeks of the submission of the final text by the author.

The Editorial Committee reserves themselves the right to decide in which issue of Paideutika to publish the article that has passed all review phases, notifying the author of the decision.

Paideutika publishes two issues per year.

 

Ethical Code

The following statement is inspired by the code of conduct of the COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics).

The only sections of Paideutika that are not subject to the peer review process are the Editorial, Columns and Reviews, as these contributions are very brief and/or descriptive/illustrative in their nature.

 

Duties of Editorial Bodies

Fairness

The Heads of the evaluation processes, assisted by the Editor-in-Chief and, where necessary, the Editorial Committee, manage the peer review process and the publication of contributions submitted to the journal. They strive to ensure the quality of the published content through an impartial, traceable, and fruitful peer review process, which is free from discriminations based on gender, sexual orientation, political or religious beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin. The Direction and the Editorial Board ensure the selection of qualified and competent reviewers for each proposal. The evaluation results are sent anonymously to the authors. Irrelevant or harmful comments will be excluded and discouraged.

Confidentiality

The peer review process is anonymous and data confidentiality is guaranteed. The submission of the proposal is accompanied by the appropriate guidelines to guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the contributions by the proposer.

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure

The Direction and Editorial Board manage their conflicts of interest, those of the reviewers and those of the authors through appropriate measures to guarantee impartiality and anonymity. Any proposals submitted by members of the Editorial Bodies must be reduced and the double-blind evaluation process is even so guaranteed to be anonymous and impartial.

Unpublished materials contained in a text submitted to the journal must not be used in research by members of the Direction or Editorial Board without the explicit written consent of the author nor can they be disclosed.

The final decision regarding the publication may be limited by legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The journal takes appropriate measures to ensure that all articles are published as Open Access, freely accessible, including through permanent identifiers such as the DOI and the OJS platform.

 

Duties of  the Authors

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors are required to propose original contributions and complete with all the references used, including citations, bibliographic sources and other materials that have been useful for the development of the text. Unreported quotations and paraphrases of other texts constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Plagiarism of others' work constitutes a serious offense.

Multiple, Repetitive or Concurrent Publications

Authors commit themselves not to submit the same contribution or contributions describing the same research to multiple journals simultaneously, as this is unethical behavior. In exceptional cases, the publication of contributions previously published elsewhere may be evaluated provided they are in another language and with the appropriate references to the first publication.

Sources Indication

Authors must always accompany the article with the correct indication of the sources and contributions mentioned. The indication of the sources must be complete and adhere to the editorial standards.

Authorship of the Work

Any co-authors, collaborators, funding entities of the research or project must be appropriately referred to in the contribution.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Authors are required to declare that there are no conflicts of interest that could have influenced the results obtained or the interpretations proposed in the article. Authors must explicitly mention any funding entities of the research and/or project from which the proposed articles derive.

Errors in Published Articles

In the event that the author notices significant errors or inaccuracies, they are required to promptly notify the journal, by indicating the information and revisions that will be appropriately published.

Authors commit themselves to adhere to the editorial standards and guidelines regarding the anonymization of their contribution. Authors also commit to cooperating with the Editorial Board on any issues that may arise regarding their articles.

 

Duties of Reviewers

The double-blind review procedure guides the Editorial Board and the Direction in their editorial decisions. The evaluation process is entirely entrusted to reviewers outside of the journal's Editorial Bodies. In very limited cases that would concern no more than one reviewer per article, an internal evaluator may be assigned for specific reasons of scientific competence. The double-blind evaluation process is nevertheless guaranteed. The list of reviewers is updated annually and made public here.

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers contribute to editorial decisions and help the author improve the article.

Reviewers are required to evaluate essays with scientific commitment and objectivity.

Objectivity

The reviewer who feels unqualified to evaluate the submitted text is required to promptly notify the Editorial Board. Reviewers, whose scientific autonomy is guaranteed, are required to adequately justify their judgments, which must be clear, reasoned and relevant to the content and form of the submitted essay.

Respect for Deadlines

The reviewer who is unable to meet the required deadlines is required to promptly notify the Editorial Board.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers are required to report any similarities or overlaps between submissions that they are aware of. The reviewer who perceives a potential conflict of interest (collaborative or competitive relationships, research or institutional) is required to not accept the review.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must handle the received submission with complete confidentiality. Each reviewer is required to not use the unpublished contents of a proposed article for their own research, except with the written consent of the author.

Privacy Policy

The names and email addresses entered in this journal's site will be used exclusively for the stated purposes and will not be made available for any other use.