Publication Ethics


Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

“Quaderni Materialisti” is committed to encouraging ethical behaviour at all stages of the publishing process by adopting and promoting the standards set by COPE in the COPE Core practices. Below is a summary of the journal’s key expectations of the editorial board, reviewers, and authors.


  1. Ethical expectations

Duties of the editorial board

The members of the journal’s editorial board are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. In doing so, they are constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editorial board seeks the support of at least two members of the scientific advisory board or other reviewers in making this decision, following a double-blind peer review process. Members of the editorial board undertake to act in a balanced, objective, and fair manner while carrying out their expected duties, as well as to evaluate the manuscripts for their intellectual content without discrimination based on gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, or ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. In the case of sponsored issues, articles will be evaluated solely on the basis of their intellectual content.

The editorial board must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Previously unpublished information included in a submitted manuscript must not be used in research conducted by a member of the editorial board without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.

Members of the editorial board should recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationship or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers – in which case they should ask a co-editor, associate editor, or other member of the editorial board to consider the manuscript in their stead. Members of the editorial board should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, further action may be taken as appropriate, such as e.g. the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.


Reviewers’ duties

The reviewers assist the members of the editorial board in making editorial decisions. They may also assist authors in improving their manuscript through editorial communications with them. The reviewers’ views must be expressed clearly with supporting arguments.

The reviewers undertake to review the manuscript objectively and in a timely manner, as well as to keep any information supplied by the editor or author confidential. They agree to not retain or copy the information contained in the manuscript.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors and alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Reviewers must be aware of any potential conflicts of interest or any other competing relationships with the authors and alert the editor to these. If necessary, they should decline to review a manuscript on those grounds. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible should also notify the editor and excuse themselves from reviewing it.


Author’s duties

It is the authors’ responsibility to submit entirely original work for consideration, to maintain accurate records of the data associated with their submitted manuscripts, and to supply or provide access to the relevant data upon reasonable request. If the authors have used the work and/or words of other authors, these must be cited as appropriate. In general, proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of their own work, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

Manuscripts submitted for consideration by the journal must not have been published as copyrighted material elsewhere nor submitted for consideration by other journals. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Publication of some kind of articles (e.g. translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided that it agrees with the COPE Core practices.

Authorship should be extended to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study, and only to them. The corresponding authors should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper, having agreed to its submission for publication.

Authors must declare any personal or financial interests that may raise questions about their scholarly presentation of information in the manuscripts submitted for consideration by the journal.

It is the authors’ responsibility to notify promptly the journal editor or publisher if a significant error in their publication is identified, as well as to cooperate with the editor and publisher to correct or retract the paper.


Publisher’s duties

The publisher shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above and commits itself to periodically re-examine its Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement following the new COPE recommendations.


  1. Procedures for dealing with unethical behaviour

Anyone may inform the editors at any time of suspected unethical behaviour or any other type of misconduct by providing the necessary information or evidence to start an investigation. All allegations will be taken seriously and treated in the same way until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.



The editorial board deliberates regarding the initiation of an investigation. During an investigation, any evidence will be treated as strictly confidential and will only be made available to those strictly involved in investigating. The accused will be given the chance to respond to any charges made against them. The investigation will be conducted in accordance with the COPE Core practices.


Minor misconduct

Minor misconduct will be dealt with directly with those found guilty without involving any third parties.


Serious misconduct

In the case of serious misconduct, the editorial board will decide the course of action to be taken using the evidence available or by consulting with experts. Serious misconduct may result in: 1) the publication of a formal announcement or editorial describing the misconduct; 2) reporting the author(s) or reviewer(s) found guilty of misconduct to their institution or employer; 3) the formal and announced withdrawal of publications from the journal, including their removal from any abstracting and indexing services; 4) the temporary or permanent ban of individuals found guilty of misconduct from submitting to the journal or serving as reviewers; 5) the referral of misconduct to a professional organization or legal authority for further investigation and action.