Paideutika submits each article, anonymous, to double-blind peer-review process. The Reviewers, anonymous, are at least two, specialists in the main field or in the method of the article.
The main criteria of the evaluation are: interest and coherence of the topic with the aims of the Journal; originality and relevance of the theme; accomplishment with scientific accuracy; developing, coherence and clearness of the argumentation; quality of scientific and critical literature regarding the subject; accuracy of writing.
The evaluation of the article includes comments and suggestions by the Reviewers to the corresponding Author and, separately, to the Editor.
The outcomes of the peer review process can be: accepted, accepted with suggested revisions; rejected.
Paideutika respects the timeline below:
• first editorial review (by Editorial Office) with consequent rejection or peer review assignment: within 3 weeks after submission;
• first round of peer review: within 4 weeks after the Reviewers assignment;
• communication to the corresponding Author: within 1 week after the Reviewers reply;
• final text deadline by the corresponding Author: within 2 weeks after the communication of Reviewers outcome;
• last editorial decision: within 2 weeks after modifications received.
The Editorial Office reserves the right to decide in which issue of Paideutika the article that passed all the evaluation steps will be published, informing the corresponding Author.
Paideutika publishes two issues per year.
Paideutika refers to the Ethical Code for publications provided by COPE: Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of the Editorship
Decisions about publishing
The Editorship is responsible for the decision to publish or not the proposed manuscripts, also consulting, for this purpose, the Editorial Board, the Reviewers and the International Advisory Board.
The Editorship and the Editorial Board, with the possible advice of the International Advisory Board, examine the contributions received in substance and form and decide on the possible publication only on the basis of the intellectual contents, consistency and scientific accuracy, congruence with the aims of the Journal, without any discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, political orientation.
The proposed contributions that meet the above requirements and that comply with the “editorial guidelines” available on the website are submitted to a double blind peer review process.
Information regarding the Authors and the contents of the proposed contributions are used only for the purpose of evaluation (limited to contents) and publication.
Editorship, Editorial Board and International Advisory Board (when involved) commit not to disclose information related to the proposed manuscripts to third parties, except to the Reviewers and the Publisher.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
The contents of the proposed and unpublished manuscripts remain confidential and cannot be used in other researches unless the Author provides written consent.
Duties of the Reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Reviewers contribute to the editorial decisions and help the Author to improve the manuscript.
Reviewers are required to evaluate contributions with scientific commitment and impartiality.
Reviewers are required to express their opinion clearly and in a well-argued manner.
The Reviewer is required to inform the Journal promptly in the event he/she does not have the necessary expertise to evaluate the proposed manuscript, if he/she discovers a potential conflict of interest (relationships of cooperation or competition, research or institutional nature) and in case he/she is not able to comply with the proposed time-frame.
Reviewers are required to notify any possible similarities or overlaps among contributions of which they are aware.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
The Reviewer is required not to use the unpublished contents of a manuscript submitted for evaluation in his/her own researches, without the written consent of the Author.
The Reviewer who feels a potential conflict of interests is required not to accept the review.
Duties of the Authors
Originality and plagiarism
Authors are required to propose contributions that are original and complete with all references used, including quotations, bibliographical sources and any other materials useful for the elaboration of the paper. Quotations that are not reported and paraphrases of texts by other Authors represent an ethically incorrect behavior and are unacceptable.
Multiple, repetitive or concomitant publications
The Author commit not to propose the same contribution or contributions that describe the same research to several Journals simultaneously, for this is an ethically incorrect behavior.
The Author must always provide the manuscript with the correct indication of the sources and of the contributions mentioned.
Authorship of the work
Any coauthors, collaborators, research or project financing bodies must be conveniently informed by the author and reported within the contribution.
Disclosure and conflict of interests
All Authors must declare that there are no conflict of interests that may have affected the results achieved or the interpretations proposed in the manuscript. Authors are required to report the possible financing bodies of the research and/or project from which the proposed manuscripts derive.
Errors in the manuscripts published
In case the Author notices some relevant errors or inaccuracies, he/she is required to inform the Journal promptly, reporting the information and corrections that will be conveniently published.
Paideutika does not submit to peer-review process only the Editorial, The Sections “Today, a philosopher” and “Archive of memory”, the Reviews, since they are very short contributions, of descriptive/illustrative nature.
The books to be reviewed are selected by the Editorial Board. The books published by the members of the Editorship and of the Editorial Board are not reviewed by Paideutika.