Publication Policy
Effetti di Lettura / Effects of Reading uses a double-blind review system for all papers. Each submitted paper is reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field, and who are not part of the journal's editorial staff. The reviewers act independently, and are not aware of each other, or of the identity of the authors, or the contributions. Contributions are only sent for review if they pass the initial assessment regarding compliance with editorial and ethical standards and the subject matter. The purpose of peer review is to help the editorial board decide whether to accept or reject a paper. The purpose is also to help authors improve their work.
The evaluation process takes approximately six weeks and only exceptionally up to three months
There is no embargo period.
Initial checks
All manuscripts received by the Editorial Board will be checked by a Managing Editor to determine whether they are consistent with the journal's subject areas, meet editorial standards, and follow the journal's ethical policies. Manuscripts that are inconsistent with the journal's subject areas, or that do not meet the journal's ethical policy and standards, will be rejected prior to peer review. Manuscripts that are not adequately prepared according to editorial standards will be returned to the authors for review and resubmission. No judgement on the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Rejection decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor-in-Chief.
Peer Review
Once the manuscript has passed the initial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. A double-blind peer review process is applied, in which the identity of the authors is not known to the reviewers.
Reviewers are selected solely on the basis of their expertise in evaluating a contribution. They must not belong to the same institution as the authors, nor have been their co-authors within the last five years. Suggestions of individual reviewers by the authors of the manuscript will not be accepted.
During the review process, the Editor may request authors to provide additional information (including raw data) if it is needed to evaluate the manuscript. These materials must be kept confidential, and must not be used for any other purpose.
Decision-making and editorial review
The scientific and editorial management follows a precise policy on the judgements made in reviews. In particular,
- Double acceptance without changes: the article is accepted.
- Double rejection: the article is rejected.
- Acceptance + Rejection: correction necessary. The article is conditionally accepted. In this case, authors are invited to submit the article with substantial changes, which will be re-evaluated by a third reviewer who will decide on final acceptance.
- Acceptance after minor revisions: the article is accepted in principle after a review based on the reviewers' comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions. Minor revisions are only subject to editorial control.
- Reconsideration after major revisions: acceptance of the manuscript depends on substantial revisions. The author must provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be responded to with revision. Usually only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised article within an appropriate time period, and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.
In cases where authors have serious and reasonable objections to reviews, the Scientific Committee may assess whether a review is objective and meets academic standards. If there are doubts about the objectivity or quality of the review, the Editor will assign additional reviewers. Other reviewers may also be assigned when the reviewers' decisions (to accept or reject) are contrary to each other, or otherwise substantially incompatible.
The final decision on acceptance of the manuscript for publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.
