Publication Ethics of E/C
E/C rivista dell’Associazione Italiana di studi semiotici
ISSN 1970-7452 (online) / 1973-2716 (print)

Authors, journal directors, editorial staff, peer reviewers and all parties involved in the act of publishing in E/C 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 in Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (available at http://publicationethics.org)

 

OBLIGATIONS FOR AUTHORS

1. Authors should present entirely original and unpublished They attest that manuscripts have not been copied or plagiarized and that other author works have been appropriately cited or quoted.
2. Authors may not submit elsewhere while the manuscript is under consideration at this journal.
3. Authorship has been limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
4. All the researchers who have made significant contributions have been listed as co-authors. Other researchers who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project have been acknowledged or listed as contributors. All co-authors have been clearly indicated at the time of paper submission.
5. Authors should take collective responsibility for their work and for the content of their publications. Researchers should check their publications carefully at all stages to ensure methods and findings are reported accurately.
6. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Previous works, data or ideas originated by other researchers should be properly acknowledged and should not be presented as if they were the authors’ own. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
7. Authors should alert the editor promptly if they discover an error in any submitted, accepted or published work. Authors should cooperate with editors in issuing corrections or retractions when required.
8. Authors should have disclosed in their manuscript any conflict of interest that could bias the work and they have declared all sources of financial support for the project, and should included informed consent if the research involved human participants.
9. Researchers should strive to describe their methods and to present their findings clearly and unambiguously. Publications should provide sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.
10. The use of AI tools, such as ChatGPT or others, does not currently meet the journal’s criteria for authorship. The use should be properly documented in the manuscript. In the case of AI-generated images, authors must make the information public by explicitly stating this in the caption of the image

 

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

1. This journal employs an anonymous double-blind review process. This means authors remain anonymous to the referees throughout the consideration process; and the referees' identities are not revealed to the authors. All contributions will be initially assessed by the Editorial Board (Editor).
2. The Editorial Board is responsible for selecting, processing, and deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal meet the editorial goals. The editor is responsible for deciding which submitted articles should be published. This decision is evaluated by taking into consideration the advice of the editors of each issue.
3. The Editorial Board reserves the right to reject a paper even after it has been accepted if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with its academic content, or our publishing policies have been violated.
4. Each paper considered suitable is sent to two independent peer reviewers who are experts in their field and able to assess the specific qualities of the work. The editors must take in account the evaluation made by the reviewers.
5. The editor collects all the reviews and make a decision about the paper. If the reviews are diverging – or one or more reports are evidently biased – the editor can contact additional referees before the final judgement about publication.
6. Guest Editors may confer with the Editorial Board.
7. The chief editor, 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.
8. Editors may be guided by the policies of the journal’s editorial board and constrained by the legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
9. Editors should make unbiased decisions independent from commercial considerations. They must evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s).
10. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
11. Editors must not use in their own research unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
12. Members of the editorial board and international scientific committee shall try to prevent misconduct by informing authors and reviewers about the ethical conduct required of them.
13. Members of the editorial board, scientific committee, and reviewers are asked to be aware of all types of misconduct in order to identify papers where research misconduct of any kind has or seems to have occurred and deal with the allegations accordingly.
14. The results of the peer review process will be published anonymously by the Editorial Board and/or the issue editors as soon as possible to allow authors time to make any necessary changes and corrections. Before and after publication, the Editorial Board is available at ec.aiss@gmail.com to deal with any doubts, disputes, complaints, including requests for changes, corrections and withdrawal of published articles. Complaints and requests for changes will be investigated by the journal staff, who will provide appropriate feedback to those concerned.

 

GUIDELINES FOR PEER REVIEWERS

1. The journal requires potential reviewers to have scientific expertise or significant work experience in a relevant field.
2. 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.
3. Reviewed articles are treated confidentially by reviewers and members of the editorial board and international scientific committee. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.
4. Reviews must be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author(s) are not acceptable. Referees must express their views clearly with supporting arguments and provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer-review report.
5. Reviewers should point out relevant published work which has not yet been cited in the reviewed material.
6. 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.
7. Generative AI tools used for peer-reviewing can lack up-to-date knowledge and may produce nonsensical, biased or false information. Manuscripts may also include sensitive or proprietary information that should not be shared outside the peer review process. For these reasons we ask that peer reviewers do not upload manuscripts into generative AI tools.