top of page
Ethical Code

The «Critical Journal of History of Ideas» uses COPE's Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors to regulate his editorial responsibility:

It is necessary that all parties involved - authors, publishers, editors, editors of monographic issues and anonymous referees - are aware of and share the ethical requirements set out below.




Editorial responsibility


The editorial directors, the editorial staff and the editors of the single issues are responsible for the decision to publish or not the articles proposed. The editor may refer to the International Scientific Committee of the Journal for expert consultation. This process is subject to the requirements of applicable laws regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.


The editors and editors of the individual issues evaluate the articles proposed for publication on the basis of their scientific content without discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship and political orientation. The decision of the editor and editorial staff to accept or reject a manuscript for publication must be based solely on the importance, originality and clarity of the text, as well as on the validity of the study and its relevance to the cultural interests of the Journal. The peer review procedure must be impartial, free from prejudice and punctual. The ownership of the magazine and the publishing house that takes care of its publication cannot interfere with decisions regarding the choice of articles deemed suitable for publication. All phases of the review process must be carried out using the protocol required by the editorial practice of the Journal, to ensure the impartiality of the final decision and to ensure that the sent materials remain confidential throughout the evaluation process. The editorial staff must be willing to accept well-founded criticism of published works and not be precluded from the possibility of publishing research that questions previously published works. It is also their duty to publish, in case of proven necessity, corrections, clarifications and retractions. In general, authors must always be given the opportunity to respond to criticism. The journal has no foreclosures on studies proposing negative or inconclusive results.




Double-blind peer review


Each article received will be subjected to an initial general assessment of thematic and content relevance by the Directors and / or the editorial staff and / or the editor of the monographic issue, with the possible help of external opinions provided by the International Scientific Committee. The articles deemed relevant will be subjected to the control procedure of the double-blind peer review. The latter is rigorously oriented on the basis of the following standardized parameters: consistency with the Call for Papers, originality with respect to the state of the art of the discipline, scientific impact, quality of argumentation, linguistic and stylistic relevance, mastery and adequacy of secondary literature. These evaluation parameters are reported in the special refereeing form provided to each referee. In case of acceptance with a request for changes, the editorial staff and / or the editor of the monographic issue will send the authors the indications and comments provided by the reviewers. In the event of unconditional acceptance or rejection, these decisions will simply be communicated to the authors, without transmitting any notations provided by the reviewers.


Articles not written according to the rules shown on the site may be rejected even if the scientific evaluation has given a positive result. The editorial staff is available for clarification regarding cases of doubt or misunderstanding.


The articles must be submitted anonymously, omitting any information that would make the author recognizable, including those contained in the ownership of the file, as well as thanks and similar, which can be added once the manuscript has been accepted. In this regard, for each contribution sent to the Journal, two separate files must be received: a first file, for blind referees, containing the unsigned essay and a second file, for the editorial staff and / or editor of the monographic issue, with the author details: name and surname, academic affiliation, title of the essay and a valid email address.


The Directors always retain the right, as a last resort, to decide on the publication of each article received.


Contribution to the editorial decision


The practice of double-blind peer review represents a fundamental tool for the editor and / or the curator to make editorial decisions. The peer review also represents a decisive support for the author in order to further improve the scientific quality of their contribution.




The referee who does not feel adequate for the proposed task or who knows that he or she cannot carry out the reading within the required time is required to promptly notify the editorial staff.




Any text assigned for reading must be considered confidential. Therefore, these texts must not be discussed with other people without the explicit authorization of the editor.




The double-blind peer review procedure must be conducted objectively. Any personal comment on the author will be deemed inappropriate. The referees are required to justify their judgments in an adequate and timely manner, referring to the state of the art concerning the topic of the exhibition and, more generally, evaluating the scientific impact that the contribution could have within the disciplinary sector of reference.

Conflict of Interest and Disclosure


Confidential information or information obtained during the double-blind peer review process must be considered confidential and cannot be used for personal purposes. Referees are required not to accept for reading articles for which there is a conflict of interest due to kinship, previous collaborative or competitive relationships with the author and / or with the institution to which he belongs.




Access and data retention


The authors of original research must also make available the sources or data on which the research is based, so that they can be kept for a reasonable period of time after publication and possibly made accessible to other scholars who intend to make use of the aforementioned information. False or inaccurate statements constitute ethical behaviour that the "Critical Journal of History of Ideas" firmly rejects. 


Originality and plagiarism


The authors must guarantee the absolute originality of the texts sent and, in the case of use of the work and / or the words of others, that this is appropriately reported or cited through specific informative and bio-bibliographic notations.


Severity of sources


The author must always provide the correct and rigorous indication of the sources and contributions mentioned in their scientific research work.

bottom of page