«Studi Germanici» adheres to the 16 Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (https://publicationethics.
The editorial director and editor-in-chief are jointly entrusted with the task of accepting or not accepting anything submitted for publication after having each text evaluated by the reviewers and having checked the orientation of the members of the editorial board.
Any research work submitted to the editor undergoes a preliminary assessment. This process is intended to ascertain the consistency of the contribution with the cultural strategies of the journal and to assess whether the contribution complies with the best scientific practice principles presented in this statement. The fulfilment of these requirements is necessary for the contribution to be submitted to the peer-review process, which is carried out according to the double-blind system (separate evaluation of an anonymous text by two mutually independent reviewers). When a published paper is subsequently found to contain major flaws, editors accept responsibility for correcting the record prominently and promptly.
All decisions made by the editor-in-chief and the editorial board members are based exclusively on a free assessment of scientific merit, unconstrained by reasons of academic standing, gender, religious orientation, nationality and other special circumstances related to the identity of the submitter.
The editor and editorial board commit to identifying reviewers on the basis of their scientific expertise and establishing a relationship of trust, guaranteed by confidentiality in the use of sources and in the handling of all information related to the review process. In particular, the editor and editorial board will not divulge any information that might compromise the reviewer’s ease, nor will they disclose information concerning authors and contributions unless strictly necessary for the correct refereeing procedures. The editor and editorial board will not assign refereeing tasks to reviewers who have relationships of familiarity or academic contiguity with the authors to the best of their knowledge.
The editor is sent the reviews, informs the authors of their content, protecting the anonymity of the reviewers, and acts accordingly with the editorial management, inviting the author to make changes to the text where appropriate. The editors take responsibility for the results of the reviews, valuing their role in the decision-making process and promoting their contribution to a balanced opinion on the outcome of the publication proposal. The editors are responsible for investigating any misconduct, whether by intention, by reckless disregard of possible consequences or by negligence on the part of the authors. Misconduct can also be notified anonymously. Authors will be given the opportunity to respond to any charge of misconduct. Editors may judge that it is necessary to involve employers or funding bodies in serious cases of misconduct. In less serious cases such as redundant publication, deception in authorship attribution or failure to declare a conflict of interest, the editor will formally reject the submission and send a letter of reprimand and warning as to future conduct.
Authors agree to submit original contributions which are not simultaneously under review elsewhere unless explicitly agreed to by the editors. If awork is republished at a later date, even partially, in a journal, volume or on a website, is the authors are obliged to inform the editors and record their consent, as well as expressly indicate the place of first publication. Previous publication of an abstract in conference proceedings does not preclude subsequent submission for publication, but full disclosure should be made at the time of submission. Re-publication of a paper in another language is acceptable, provided that there is full and prominent disclosure of its original source at the time of submission.
When submitting a contribution, authors guarantee compliance with the principles of originality, transparency and verifiability that govern scientific work. Specifically, primary and secondary literature must be unambiguously characterized using current graphic systems and in accordance with the publishing conventions adopted by the journal. The incorporation of sources and their critical discussion must take place in a manner that does not compromise the intellectual property of the work, which is to be unambiguously referred to the person of the author. Literal quotations and paraphrases must be signalized as such, each in accordance with their respective common usage in the relevant scientific community. Authors are obliged to apply without exception the instructions provided by the journal for formatting the contributions, discussing any necessary deviations beforehand with the editors.
Authors will appropriately highlight any contribution made by others involved in significant stages of the research process. In the event of co-authors, their responsibility must be indicated to the editors as early as the submission of the publication proposal; their participation must be clearly highlighted and, where possible, specified in relation to the share of the text they authored.
At the end of the revision process, the editors may indicate to the authors the need for improvements in line with the journal’s requirements. At this stage, the editors and the authors will cooperate to ensure the good quality of the work, integrating remarks and counterarguments when common sense suggests doing so. In any case, final decisions are to be taken by the editors.
Reviewers agree to submit their reviews by the deadline set by the journal, in order to ensure the orderly preparation of the printed text. Deviations from the agreed deadline must be reported as soon as possible. The editors reserve the right to determine a final extension so that it is not detrimental to the work of the journal.
In small scientific communities, it is likely that reviewers may deduce the identity of the author. Reviewers will not accept or will give up assignments for which there are conflicts of interest related to the existence of academic and professional relationships with the author thus identified and with individuals involved in the management of the journal.
Reviewers will evaluate the submitted essay according to its compliance with common criteria of good scientific quality. The purpose of these evaluations is to ensure the quality of the journal. It is not a question of discussing the merits of theses and methodologies or of judging the originality of outcomes, but of ensuring that appropriate quality standards are met. If reviewers suspect misconduct, they should write to the editor in confidence. Contributions on topics of proven scientific importance that present a solid organization of the material, knowledge of the state of the art, a consistently applied methodology, interpretative capacity and clarity of exposition can be considered for publication. It is important that the responses be straightforward so as to favour the choices of the board.
Any recommendation of secondary and primary literature not taken into consideration by the author must be accompanied by a full bibliographical reference. The same criteria of accuracy are recommended to reviewers who report imprecise quotations or paraphrases.
Reviewers will treat the submitted contribution and all information acquired during the refereeing process with confidentiality and discretion. The submitted manuscript should not be retained or copied by the reviewer. The identity of the author, the content of the proposed publication and the results of the review process must not be disclosed outside the confidential relationship with the editorial board and must not be used for personal gain. Reviewers and editors should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission.
Ultimo aggiornamento 27 Aprile 2023 a cura di Luisa Giannandrea