ECF publications are evaluated according to rigorous scientific quality criteria, in accordance with best practices shared by research communities and international open access publishers. The published articles have indeed obtained the favourable opinion of at least two expert evaluators of the subject, through a process of anonymous review (double-blind peer review) conducted under the responsibility of the Scientific Directions of the journals.
The evaluation is carried out in accordance with and adherence to the scientific criteria indicated below, and to the editorial criteria of bibliographic completeness and formal consistency of Edizioni Ca’ Foscari.
ECF provides all users with access to a peer review platform called ECFPeerflow, projected and developed by ECF itself. The recommended scientific evaluation standard consists in a process of anonymous double evaluation carried out by independent professors or researchers, external to the advisory boards of the Journal (double-blind peer review).
ECF offers constant and timely support in the use of the platform through the email contact email@example.com.
The Scientific Direction of each journal is autonomous and independent in the conduct of the Call for Papers, in the choice of peer reviewers, in the conduct of the evaluations, in compliance with ECF policy and general warnings.
The Advisory Board identifies the reviewers. They must present an adequate curriculum and an appreciable number of publications, preferably subjected to quality control procedures. It is recommended that they do not belong to the university to which the journal is affiliated.
Within the peer review platform, the journal has a specific profile, whose accountable and main manager is the Editor-in-Chief.
Each article is uploaded anonymously into the platform by the Author and is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief to a pair of Reviewers. The Author and the Reviewers cannot come into contact with each other, not even indirectly, during the entire evaluation process.
The Reviewer has to determine if the document is:
If the document is ‘accepted’, the Reviewer has to specify if it is:
The Reviewer justifies his/her decision by filling in an evaluation form in which he/she expresses a qualitative judgment of the article regarding the following items:
The Reviewer has to select one of the following five levels:
However, for each of these judgments it is possible to add a discursive comment.
The article is considered as ‘rejected’ by the evaluation system if even only one of the two Reviewers rejects it. In this case, the Editor-in-Chief may submit the document to a third judgment.
If the Reviewers have requested changes to the article, the Author must provide a second version, whose acceptance will be subject to the favourable opinion of the Editor-in-Chief.
At the end of the peer review process, ECF further verifies that the document complies with the prescribed editorial standards and, if necessary, requests the Editor-in-Chief or the Editorial Board to adapt or to have the document conformed to the established standards. The process is then concluded and the editorial staff starts the process of publishing the evaluated and accepted documents.
The entire review process is tracked, stored and archived in the platform database, which resides on a server managed by Ca’ Foscari University of Venice. Authors and Reviewers maintain access to the archive linked to their respective profiles, where a track of all the activities carried out is kept.