Ethics statement



  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
    • 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


Edizioni ETS and the Editor-in-chief of the journal «Teoria» 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


1.     General responsibilities: Conflict of interest

Any actual or potential conflicts of interest from everyone involved in the publication process (Publisher, Editor-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. .


2.     Publication and 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.

The submission must not have been previously published in another journal. 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 Editor-in-chief and the Scientific Committee.

A plagiarism detection software ((“Turnitin Originality Check”, by the University of Pisa) is also used by the Editorial Board to detect text-recycling and uncited sources.

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.

The Editor-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.

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

Authors will promptly notify the Editor-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.).

3      Peer review / responsibility for and commitments of the reviewers

Through the peer review process, the reviewers offer their support to the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in taking decisions on the submitted contributions. The Scientific Committee plays a role in ensuring the scientific and international nature of the journal. The Editorial Board assigns reviewers and manages the entire review process and any desk rejections. It knows the identities of the authors and reviewers. For this reason, no member of the Committee acts as a reviewer. The editorial board also verifies the absence of any conflicts of interest, such as kinship up to the third degree with the authors of contributions submitted to the journal.

The selection of contributions consists of two steps. The first is the evaluation of the abstracts. In this phase, editors make use of the possibility of involving reviewers for a double-blind peer review. The practice of peer review helps the editors make editorial decisions and, through editorial communication with the author, can also help the author improve his or her abstract.

The second phase involves the evaluation of articles by double-blind peer review. The reviewers are expected to offer the Authors suggestions as to possible adjustments aimed at improving their submission. They give their opinion on the quality of the contribution by filling in the evaluation grid. The outcome of the selection is communicated to the authors by the editorial board by e-mail.


The reviewers are provided with guidelines by the Editor-in-chief in collaboration with the Secretary and the Scientific Committee. 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. The reviewers must confidentially notify the Editor 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.

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”.

Reviewers should inform the Editor-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).

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      Editorial responsibilities

The Editor-in-chief is aware to be accountable for everything published in «Teoria». Therefore, he/she has processes in place to assure the quality of the material to be published and he/she ensure that peer review at the journal is fair, unbiased, and timely, and that all papers have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. However, he/she actively seeks the views of authors, readers, reviewers, scientific and editorial board members about ways of improving peer review and publishing processes for the journal.

4.2. Responsibility on quality

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 Editor-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 committee 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.

4.4 Feedback and improvement

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 (with the help of the Turnitin Originality Check). 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.

5      Publishing ethics issues

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

6      Unethical Behaviour

Misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editor-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 the initial decision of the Editor-in-chief. If, in the light of a full documentary evidence, 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 Editor-in-chief.