Edizioni ETS and the Editorial Board of Nuova Rivista di Letteratura Italiana take their respective duties to prevent any kind of publication malpractice. The publisher, the journal editor, and the peer reviewers, play each their part and are responsible for the compliance with the following statements of publication ethics.
The following ethic guidelines are inspired by the COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Ethical Code (see the Core Practices at https://publicationethics.org/core-practices).
Any actual or potential conflicts of interest from everyone involved in the publication process (Editors, Editorial Board Members, 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, or be perceived to 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. If there is no conflict of interest this should be stated. This should be listed at the end of the text, after any acknowledgements and just before the Reference list, under a subheading “Conflict of interest statement”.Authors must clearly state that the submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or a thorough explanation has been provided in ‘Comments for the Editor’ at 1st step of the submission process).
Since no paper is published without substantial corrections, previous publication in conference proceedings or working papers does not preclude publication. However, authors are required to disclose any dissemination or publication of the material in other closely related publications, so that the journal editors can assess the overlap.
Authors will promptly notify the journal Editor-in-chief of any mistake or error in their publication, both during the review process and after publication. An errata corrige or an addendum may be published in forthcoming issues. Authors acknowledge that the Editorial Board may retract the paper in case of unethical behaviour (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent data, etc.).Publisher commitments
Edizioni ETS is committed to protecting intellectual property and copyright, and to respecting privacy and personal data (especially that of authors and reviewers). Edizioni ETS is sensitive to intellectual property issues and will work with its authors to address potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.
Edizioni ETS is also committed to working closely with editors and reviewers to promote editorial independence and to ensure the transparency and integrity of the review process, particularly with regard to conflicts of interest.
Edizioni ETS has always prevented editorial needs from compromising ethical and intellectual standards and is committed to publishing corrections, retractions and apologies where necessary.
Management commitments
The management recognises that it is responsible for everything published in the journal. The Editorial Board has procedures in place to ensure the quality of the material published and, in particular, to ensure that the peer review process is fair, impartial, timely and carried out by suitably qualified individuals. The management also actively seeks the views of authors, readers, reviewers and editorial board members in order to improve the review process and the editorial process of the journal. The decision to accept or reject a submission is based on the importance, originality, clarity, validity of the study and its scientific relevance to the journal's areas of expertise. In order to ensure the quality of published articles, the Editorial Board encourages reviewers to provide detailed comments justifying their judgement. The comments, which will be communicated to the author of the article, will help the Scientific Board to decide on publication and motivate the author. Furthermore, if the article is accepted, the comments should guide the author in the revision of the text. In any case, all proposals received by the journal remain confidential during the review process.
The Editors are assisted in the editorial process by the Editorial Board. The members of the Editorial Board are regularly consulted for their opinions.
Reviewers' obligations
The Editors provide guidance to reviewers. The decision to accept or reject a submission is based on the importance, originality, clarity, validity of the study and its scientific relevance to the journal's areas of expertise. In particular, peer reviewers must be vigilant for redundant publications and forms of plagiarism and self-plagiarism, and in case of doubt must use anti-plagiarism software; they must also declare any potential conflicts of interest transparently before accepting to review a proposal. In order to maintain a high standard of review, reviewers' comments should be provided as soon as possible and in any case within the timeframe set by management (normally one month). Reviewers' identities are protected, and they are required to treat proposals in the strictest confidence.
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 initial decision of the Editor-in-chief. If, in the light of a full documentary evidence, a 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.
Peer-review Process
The review process consists of the following stages
1) Each paper proposed to Nuova Rivista di Letteratura Italiana and submitted through the electronic platform will be preliminarily screened by the Editorial Board, which will unanimously decide whether or not it is eligible for anonymous double peer review; in case of doubt, the Editorial Board may also consult the members of the International Scientific Committee at this preliminary stage. Each member of the Editorial Board and the Scientific Committee undertakes to declare any potential conflict of interest. The decision to accept or reject a proposal at this preliminary stage will be based on the relevance, originality, clarity and validity of the study within the scope of the journal.
2) In the event that the proposed work is deemed ineligible for anonymous review, the author(s) will receive, via the electronic platform of the journal, a notification of the decision, which will also include a summary of the reasons for the Management's judgement.
3) If the proposed paper is deemed eligible for anonymous review, the Editorial Board will identify two possible qualified reviewers of the paper, who agree to inform the Editorial Board in advance of any potential conflict of interest. The peer review - double-blind - cannot be carried out by members of the management, but can be carried out by members of the International Scientific Committee who have not already been approached in phase 1). The selected reviewers can be contacted either via the NRLI electronic platform (in which case they follow the instructions there to carry out the review) or by e-mail (in which case they fill in a form previously prepared by the Board). In both cases, the content of the review will remain strictly confidential and will be archived on the NRLI's electronic platform, which will thus keep a complete record of all the stages of the editorial process, from the proposal of the text to its possible revision and final publication.
4) In case of disagreement between the two identified reviewers, a third reviewer, identified and contacted as described above, will be used.
5) The reviewers' assessments and comments, if any, will be sent - via the NRLI platform or by e-mail - to the author, who, depending on the extent of the changes required, will have up to one month to return the text in its final version (scrupulously adapted to the NRLI's editorial criteria, indicated on the website) and upload it to the platform. The satisfactory application by the author of the suggestions and substantive corrections considered essential by the reviewers will be checked by the Editors.
6) The text checked by the editors and the reviewers and, if necessary, corrected by the author, will be sent to the Editorial Board, which will be responsible for perfecting its editorial suitability according to the editorial criteria of the NRLI; a native speaker expert will also check the correctness of the abstracts in English that each article has. Under no circumstances are members of the editorial staff involved in the revision process.
7) The text goes to the printing stage, is given a DOI code, and is submitted for review by the author(s) and the editorial staff in two separate rounds of proofreading.