Single-blind Peer Review Process

 

The single-blind peer review process of Power and Democracy – International Journal of Politics, Philosophy and Law (PaD) is articulated along the following steps:

a) The Editorial Board carries out a preliminary evaluation of the submitted papers. In cases of non-compliance with the Authors Guidelines, the Editorial Board may invite the author to resubmit an adequate papers or to completing it with the required attachments.

b) In cases of inconsistency or incoherence of the papers submitted with respect to the topics of PaD, the Editorial Board informs the author about the impossibility of publishing his/her work.

c) All the contributions received, once the preliminary evaluation of the Editorial Board has been successfully passed, are subject to a peer review. Only in the following cases can referral be excluded, following a discretionary assessment by the Editorial Board:

(i) contributions from clear distinguished scholars of recognized scientific leadership at international or national level;

(ii) reprint or translation of contributions previously published in other journals or other editorial works of high and recognized prestige at international or national level (after the Author has acquired the agreement and authorization of the previous publisher, or, in any case, with a guarantee, by the Author, of non-infringement of existing copyrights or of the rights of third parties: see above, Ethical Guidelines for journal publication - Section III –Authors’ duties -  c) 

In the cases under (i) and (ii), the Editorial Staff will insert in the first footnote of the text this express indication: "article published without the need of peer review".

1. d) Once the preliminary evaluation of the paper submitted has been successfully completed, the Editorial Board selects one or more referees according to the following requirements: (i) level of knowledge of the issues involved in the contribution to be evaluated; (ii) knowledge of the language in which the contribution was written; (iii) availability in terms of time to devote to the review activity; (iv) absence of conflicts of interest. Acceptance of the assignment by the referee is equivalent to confirmation by the latter of possession of the requirements from (i) to (iii): with reference to profile (iv), if a referee, received the anonymous work by to evaluate, identify situations of any type that could jeopardize his objectivity of judgment, he must immediately communicate it to the Management Committee which will replace it with another referee (see above, Ethical Guidelines for journal publication - Section II – Referees’ duties – f) 

Referees are selected by the Editorial Board through significant involvement of external referees. For the purpose of maximum transparency, PaD will publish at the end of the year a list with the names of the external referees involved in the referencing process, without indicating their respective contributions. Over time, the Editorial Board will ensure the rotation principle in the selection of referees.

All referees are bound: i) to the utmost confidentiality; ii) to not disclose in whole or in part the paper submitted to their examination; iii) to not unduly use the paper for purposes other than that of the review; and iv) to guarantee that their assessments will remain strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to third parties.

1. e) PaD adopts a single-blind peer review process, in order that both the author and the referees remain anonymous. The referee (or the referees, if required by the Editorial Board) having examined the paper, are required to complete every section of the review form, prepared by the Editorial Board uniformly for all referees. The referees must send their evaluation through the form within the terms assigned by the Editorial Board (in any case, not exceeding 30 days). Both the list of those to whom reference tasks have been entrusted, and the review forms received, are archived electronically.

The referees must base their assessment on the paper according to the following criteria: (1) clarity in identifying the scientific objectives and in formulating the conclusions; clarity of the exposure; (2) originality and innovativeness of the critical contribution (it must develop in a problematic key, not in a mere scholastic or descriptive way); contribution to a deeper understanding of the topics covered; (3) methodological rigor of the analysis and consistency of the arguments carried out; (4) adequate internal structuring and coherence between the different parts of the contribution; (5) adequate reconstruction of the different orientations present in the academic international debate on the topic; accuracy of bibliographic references.

f) The judgment of each referee, made by completing the review form, can opt for one of the following alternatives: (a) acceptance without the need for changes; (b) acceptance subject to non-substantial changes; (c) invitation to review and resend with substantial changes; (d) rejection of the contribution. The review form includes, in addition to this summary judgment, a comment by the referee in which he/she must briefly illustrate the reasons for his/her judgment in relation to all the evaluation criteria, and must report the revisions he/she suggests to possibly add to the work.

If the judgment of both referees is made in the sense sub (a), the Editorial Board communicates to the Author the totally positive outcome of the double-blind peer review, with the consequent admission to publication. If the judgment of both referees is made in the sense sub (d), the Editorial Staff communicates to the Author the totally negative outcome of the double-blind peer review, with the consequent rejection of publication. If one referee expresses himself in the sense sub (a) and the other one in the sense sub (b), or if both express a judgment in the sense sub (b), the Editorial Board communicates to the Author the substantial positive outcome of the double-blind peer review, but also the non-substantial changes to be made, as reported by one or both anonymous referees, and verifies that they are then made by the Author, otherwise the contribution will not be published.

If the judgment of both referees is made in the sense sub (c), the Editorial Board notifies the Author of the substantial changes to be made as reported by anonymous referees, in addition to the partially negative outcome of the single-blind peer review; once the contribution has been revised, the Author must submit it again to PaD (always in the anonymous version), in a mark up version to highlight, in relation to the observations of the referees, which changes or additions have introduced for this purpose; each referee who had requested extensive revisions will express its assessment on the new version of the contribution in a short time (in any case not exceeding 10 days) and must here definitively express only in the sense of acceptance or, alternatively, of the non acceptance of the contribution, as revised. In case of contrast between the evaluations expressed by the two referees in the sense that one expresses for the acceptability sub (a) or (b) and the other one for the postponement or non-acceptability sub (c) or (d), the publication of the contribution, with or without modifications, is subject to a third and final evaluation which must be expressed unanimously by all the members of the Editorial Board.