Ethics statement


Edizioni ETS and the Editorial Board of Studi lockiani 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, , that are inspired  by the Code of Ethics of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics: see section ‘Core Practices’ at



0. General responsibilities: Conflict of interest

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.

1. Publication and authorship

1.1. Authorship

All authors should have made substantial contributions to all of 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.


1.2. Self-plagiarism

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).


1.3. Data

Authors shall provide access to data associated with their research, on reasonable request. Authors are requested to maintain records of the data and deposit them if allowed.


1.4. Funding organizations

Authors are requested to disclose any potential or actual conflict of interest. In addition, they are requested to make explicit reference either to funding organization (s) or research programmes.


1.5. References

Authors must carefully quote and include in their references all, and only, the sources they refer to. All sources authors are drawing on must also be clearly included.


1.6. Authors as future reviewers

Authors acknowledge that they may be selected as anonymous reviewers in future issues after an embargo of two years.


1.7. Retraction

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 behavior (plagiarism, self-plagiarism, fraudulent data, etc.).


2. Peer review/responsibility for and commitments of the reviewers

2.1 Scientific standards

The reviewers are provided by the Editors with guidelines on everything that is expected of them. Particular attention must be paid to individuate unethical behavior, 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.


2.2. Objectivity

Reviewers are requested to provide an objective judgment. An evaluation grid is provided as a template to support them in the review process, but they should feel free to integrate the form with any other information or suggestion that may be relevant.


2.3. Promptness

While keeping a high quality of the review process, the reviewers’ comments should be as prompt as possible. Reviewers should inform the Editor if circumstances arise that prevent them from submitting a timely review.


2.4. Confidentiality

Peer reviewers’ identities are protected. On their turn, they are committed to handling submitted material in confidence.

2.5 Peer-review Process

The judgment of the referees is anonymous and unappealable. Articles cannot, for any reason, be submitted by third parties, but must be sent to the editorial office by the author(s). Each author, when submitting a contribution, agrees not to submit it to other journals before knowing the outcome of the review process. The rule also applies to articles not submitted to a double-blind peer-reviewed section (whose acceptance or rejection is decided solely by the editorial board).

The editors may request contributions from reputable experts regarding a specific topic: such contributions are called "invited articles," and this eventuality will be clearly intelligible at the time of publication.
Obvious typos as such and minor nonconformities to editorial standards will be corrected by the editorial staff.
Articles that do not comply with the citation system and bibliographic notes will be rejected.

The journal relies on a double-blind peer review process. Papers proposed by authors are received by the editors, who decide whether to reject the proposal ex officio (in the case of obvious misconduct, or if the proposal’s topic is incompatible with the journal's scientific objectives) or to initiate the review process. In the latter case, the editors are assisted by the members of the editorial board in managing the anonymous review process, which involves the following steps: identifying the two reviewers, mediating between the reviewers and the authors while protecting their identities, and making a final decision on the publication of the proposal. In the event of a strong disagreement between the two reviewers, the editors and the editorial board may reserve the right to request a new opinion and initiate a second round of review.

The Open Journal System platform, which the journal relies on for the editorial production process and the issue’s publication, guarantees the protection of the identities of those involved in the blind review process. Reviewers are required to justify their judgment by completing the review form on the journal's OJS platform.

Upon request, members of the editorial board may disclose the identity of reviewers and authors only at the end of the review process and for the sole purpose of establishing direct contact.

Authors and reviewers should contact the editorial board and editors in case of disputes or reports.

3. Editorial responsibilities

3.1. Accountability

The Editors are aware to be accountable for everything published in the journal. Therefore, they have processes in place to assure the quality of the material they publish and, in particular, they ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely and that all papers have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers. However, they actively seek the views of authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members about ways of improving peer review and publishing processes for the journal.


3.2. 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 always encourages 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.


3.3. Confidentiality

In any case, all material submitted to the journal remains confidential while under review.
Reviewers identities will be protected and kept confidential as well.


3.4. Feedback and improvement

The editorial board members are consulted periodically to gauge their opinions about the running of the journal, informing them of any changes to journal policies and identifying future challenges.


3.5. 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.

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.


4. Publishing ethics issues

Edizioni ETS is committed to protecting 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 Editors to handle potential violations of intellectual property laws and conventions.

Moreover, the Publisher works in close co-operation with its Editors and Peer Reviewers in order 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.

The Direttore Responsabile is held responsible in front of the law for any infringement of the law or of the Ethical and Professional rules of the Ordine dei giornalisti.


5. Unethical Behaviour

Misconduct may be brought to the attention of the Editor in chief by anyone, at any time. Sufficient information or evidence has to 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 the 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 Direttore responsabile.