Guide for Authors and PEMS

Download Guide for Authors and Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

1.  Guide for Authors

The Guide for Authors and the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS) support combined efforts by authors, editors, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.

All authors must know and keep in mind the Guide for Authors and the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Guidelines for the submission of the papers and manuscript preparation and format are to be found on the Editorial Guidelines webpage: https://www.ilsileno.it/filosofiesemiotiche/normeredazionali/

 

1.1  Fees or charges for authors

No fees or charges are required for manuscript processing and/or publishing materials. Publication fees: none.

Submission fees: none.

“Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” is a peer-reviewed and Open Access journal and operates  in not-for-profit mode.

 

1.2  Review policy

Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a double-blind peer review process and to follow publication conventions.

All authors are obliged to make the requested changes and correct mistakes. When changes are asked for, the authors have a certain timeline for submitting their modifications. In each case, for the collective volumes, authors and reviewers must follow the schedule provided in the relative Call  for Papers.

 

1.3  Copyright, access and licensing

The intellectual property and copyright on the original content of all scientific contributions shall remain with the authors.

In confirming the open access publication of their manuscripts, all authors agree to the Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

 

1.4  Data Access and Retention

Authors may be asked to provide the research data on which their manuscript is based for editorial review and/or to comply with the open data requirements of the journal. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Authors should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable. Authors and researchers are asked to anonymize confidential data and personal information so that they may be accessed.

When submitting, authors are encouraged to join a data statement to their manuscript. In the statement, they can identify the data they used in the manuscript and indicate its availability, for example in a data repository. Authors should be prepared to maintain research data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

 

1.5  Archiving

Authors are allowed to self-archive the published manuscripts in institutional or thematic repositories recognized in their areas.

For example:

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02152344/document https://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/63328

Furthermore, all the volumes of “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” published by the owner “Il Sileno Edizioni” can be downloaded from the official website of the journal: https://www.ilsileno.it/filosofiesemiotiche/

 

2.  Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS)

The Guide for Authors and PEMS support combined efforts by the editors, authors, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, and reviewers to produce a responsible research publication.

 

2.1.  Editors

Editors are the stewards of the journal. They usually take over their journals from the previous editor(s) and always want to hand over the journal in good shape.

Most editors provide direction for the journal and build a strong management team.

They must consider and balance the interests of many constituents, including readers, authors, staff, owner, editorial board members, advertisers and the media.

  • Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the manuscript’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
  • Studies that challenge previous work published in the journal should be given an especially sympathetic
  • Studies reporting negative results should not be
  • All original studies should be peer reviewed before publication, taking into full account possible bias due to related or conflicting.

 

2.2.  Editorial Board

The members of the Editorial Board are appointed by the Editors of the journal. The Editorial Board takes care of all the relationships with the authors during the editing and implementation phases of the work. Members have the moral responsibility of supporting researchers to publish their works.

 

2.3.  International Scientific Board

The Scientific Board of “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” is responsible for the proper conduct of the series system and ensures the level of scientific quality of the series.

Scientific Board members are advised to check their availability for reviewing, acting as editor by checking their own schedule. Scientific Board members of “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” should adhere to the publication policy of the series system without fail.

 

2.4  Responsible research publication: authors’ responsibilities

The research being reported in the papers must be conducted in an ethical and responsible  manner and must comply with all relevant legislation.

Authors must be aware of and refrain from engaging in scientific misconduct and by breaching publishing ethics.

Hereafter is a list of best ethical practices and common types of misconduct as found is COPE’s Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Authors.

  • Authors should present their results clearly, honestly, and without fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material.
  • Authors should strive to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be confirmed by
  • Authors should provide appropriate authorship and acknowledgement. Authors must refrain from deliberately misrepresenting a scientist’s relationship with published work. All authors must have significantly contributed to the Contributors who have made less substantial contributions to the research or to the publication can be acknowledged, but should not be identified as authors.
  • Authors must tell the journal when they have a direct or indirect conflict of interest with editors or members of the Editorial board or International scientific
  • All authors must submit a list of references and financial support if so requested by the editorial All sources of research funding, including direct and indirect financial support, should be disclosed.
  • No significant part of the paper shall have been previously published either as an article, or be under consideration for publication
  • If the authors intend to reproduce their paper in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain the written authorization of the editorial board.
  • Authors shall refrain from engaging in ’salami publication’, meaning the segmentation of research that would turn one meaningful paper into several different papers.
  • Authors are obliged, for all materials submitted, to participate in a peer review process and to follow publication conventions.

For further information please consult COPE’s guidelines: Responsible Research Publication: International                                                        Standards                                   for                                   Authors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standards_authors_for%20website_11_Nov_201 1.pdf

2.5  Responsible research publication: editors’ responsibilities

2.5.1  Publication decision

This journal employs a double-blind review process. All contributions will be initially assessed by the editor. The editor is solely and independently responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the paper proposals submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals and could thus be published. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two/three independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. The editor is responsible for the final decision regarding whether or not the paper is accepted or rejected.

Each paper, without any reference to the names of the authors, therefore anonymous, is sent to two independent peer reviewers. If the opinions of the two reviewers are conflicting, a third reviewer would be contacted. The final decision belongs to the concerned editor.

The decision to publish a paper will always be measured in accordance to its importance to researchers, practitioners, and potential readers. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent from commercial considerations.

The editor’s decisions and actions are constrained by ethical and legal requirements such as its own PEMS and all relevant legislation.

Editors who make final decisions about manuscripts should withdraw from editorial decisions if they have conflicts of interest or relationships that pose potential problems concerning manuscripts under consideration. The responsibility of the final decision regarding publication will be attributed to an editor who does not have any conflicts of interest.

2.5.2  Conflict of interest

The chief editor and co-editors, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, and reviewers shall withdraw in any case of conflict of interest concerning an author or authors, or the content of a manuscript to be evaluated.

The journal “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” will avoid all conflict of interest between authors, reviewers, and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

2.5.3  Peer review

Each paper submitted is the responsibility of the Editor-In-Chief, the Associate Editors or one member of the editorial board, who undertakes to have it evaluated by two/three peers who are experts in the field and who evaluate it anonymously.

Reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially by editorial board members, members of the international scientific committee, and reviewers.

2.5.4  Identifying and preventing misconduct

In no case shall the journal and members of the editorial board encourage misconduct of any kind or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Members of the editorial board shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them.

Members of the editorial board and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify manuscripts where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.

2.5.5  Guidelines in case of retraction or corrections

a. Editors’ responsibilities

In case of misconduct, the journal editor is responsible for resolving the issue. He or she can work in conjunction with the other co-editors, book editors, members of the editorial board and scientific committee, peer reviewers, and experts in the field.

b. Documentation

The issue will be documented accordingly

All factual questions should be documented: who, what, when, where, why.

All relevant documents should be kept, in particular the manuscript(s) concerned.

c. Due process for authors

The journal editor shall contact the author or publication involved, either the author submitting to “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” or another publication or author. The author is thus given the  opportunity to respond to or comment on the complaint, allegation, or dispute.

d. Appropriate corrections

In the event that misconduct has or seems to have occurred, or in the case of needed corrections, the editorial board deals with the different cases by following the appropriate COPE recommendations. Great care will be taken to distinguish cases of honest human error from deliberate intent to defraud.

COPE states that:

Journal editors should consider retracting a publication if they have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error). Retraction is also appropriate in cases of redundant publication, plagiarism, and unethical research.

Journal editors should consider issuing an expression of concern if: 1) they have reason to believe that there has been research or publication misconduct by the authors but have insufficient evidence, 2) there is evidence that the findings are unreliable but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case, 3) they believe that an investigation into alleged misconduct related to the publication either has not been, or would not be, fair, impartial or conclusive, 4) or an investigation is underway but a judgement will not be available for a considerable time.

Journal editors should consider issuing a correction if a small portion of an otherwise reliable manuscript proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error), or the author / contributor list is incorrect (i.e., a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).

Source:                                   COPE                                  Retraction                                  Guidelines, https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf

To summarize, the editorial board will consider retracting a publication in case of misconduct, issuing an expression of concern in case of inconclusive proof of misconduct; or issuing a request for the correction of a misleading segment.

“Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” journal has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Responsible Research Publication: International Standards for Editors, https://publicationethics.org/files/International%20standard_editors_for%20website_11_Nov_2011. pdf.

2.5.6  Data access and retention

Where appropriate, editors encourage authors to share the data that supports research publications. Research data refers to the results of observations or experimentation that validate research findings. Editors encourage authors to state the availability of their data in a data statement attached  to the submitted paper. With the data statement, authors can be transparent about the data they used in the paper.

2.6  Responsible research publication: reviewers’ responsibilities

All reviewers must know and keep in mind the Guide for Authors, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement (PEMS).

The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field. They must have recently conducted research and/or work and have acquired recognized expertise by their peers. Potential reviewers should provide personal and professional information which is accurate and which gives a fair representation of their expertise.

All reviewers must likewise withdraw if they know they are unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, if they feel their evaluation of the material will not be objective, or if they understand themselves to be in a conflict of interest.

Reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee.

Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material. If necessary, the editor may issue a correction request to this effect.

Reviewers are asked to identify papers where research misconduct has or seems to have occurred and inform the editorial board, which will deal with each case accordingly.

“Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” has taken as its model the best ethical practices as found in COPE’s Ethical Guidelines              for                        Peer                            Reviewers, https://publicationethics.org/files/Ethical_Guidelines_For_Peer_Reviewers_2.pdf.

2.7  Copyright, content originality, plagiarism and reproduction

The intellectual property and copyright on the original content of all scientific contributions shall remain with the authors.

The authors shall guarantee the originality of their material.

Plagiarism and false or intentionally misleading declarations constitute behaviour that is at odds with the ethics of scientific publication; as such, they are deemed unacceptable.

No significant part of the paper shall have been previously published either as an article or as a chapter or book, or be under consideration for publication elsewhere. If the authors intend to reproduce their manuscript in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means, they must obtain the written authorization of the editorial board.

Reproduction of extracts of publications is possible provided that the authors cite their source and have obtained explicit permission from the rights holders, which permission shall not be unduly with held. Reference must be given to the title of the article, the journal, the author(s), date and place of publication. The journal reserves the right to apply reproduction rights.

2.8  Access and licensing

Volumes are published in open access. There are no associated subscriptions or pay-per-view fees. All “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” material is made available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND  4.0).

2.9  Multiple, redundant, simultaneous, or repeat publications

The authors shall not submit a paper already published elsewhere, or a new paper founded entirely on work already published. Likewise, the authors shall not make multiple submissions.

Furthermore, the journal reserves for itself the right to publish in-house publications and scientific contributions that have already been published and are still relevant.

The complete reproduction of journal manuscripts in other publications or for any other purpose and by any means requires the written authorization of the Editor.

2.10  Conflict of interest

We try to ensure that any “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” journal publication is free from undue influence. Authors submitting a paper to “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” journal, editors, book editors and reviewers of “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” publications, are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest that could interfere with the objectivity or integrity of a publication. Conflicts of interest are situations that could be perceived to exert an undue influence on the presentation, review or publication of a piece of work.

These may be financial, non-financial, professional, contractual or personal in nature. We also expect that anyone who suspects an undisclosed conflict of interest regarding a work published or under consideration by “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche” journal should inform the relevant editor or email filosofiesemiotiche@gmail.com.

2.11  Confidentiality policy

The names of authors, reviewers, and collaborators along with the names of their organizations, institutional affiliations and e-mails, which the journal may record in the course of its operations, shall remain confidential and shall not be used for any commercial or public ends beyond the signature of  the papers published. However, this information may sometimes be required by     government grant-giving bodies. The anonymity of the peer review selection shall be maintained when transmitting this information. A list of the names of authors, reviewers, and collaborators and the names of their organizations and institutional affiliations shall be sent with no explicit links between those named.

The journal may use these lists for its own purposes of soliciting papers, collaboration, or other contributions, notably through occasional e-mails. Similarly, it will flag forthcoming issues. Anyone who wishes to stop receiving these e-mails may simply ask to be removed from the list.

2.12  Ownership and management

“Il Sileno Edizioni” publisher (www.ilsileno.it) is the owner of the journal “Filosofi(e)Semiotiche”.

2.13  Publishing schedule

Two issues in a volume are published each year, in the months of July and December, after a process which starts from the diffusion of the relative Call for Papers in the same periods.

The Call for Paper proposals are submitted to the attention of the Editors and the Editorial Board which will evaluate their relevance and scientific value. If a Call for Papers doesn’t reach a minimum number of contributions for publication, it is possible, exceptionally, to propose a Special Issue by invitation, the contributions of which must, however, be subjected to double blind peer review.

I commenti sono chiusi.