Review

Review criteria used by scientific and research publications require that we practice “peer review” or “refereeing” in order to maintain our “A” classifications. For transparency reasons, please see below how this is done.

Type - We have chosen anonymous, double-blind refereeing: The Author does not know who the Reviewer will be and the Reviewer does not know who the Author is. The Author sends the submission to the Editors in two versions, one identifiable, for publication, and the second one for the Reviewer that is anonymous, i.e. with no reference, whether in the text, notes or metadata, that could directly or indirectly be traced back to the Author.

Consent - By sending an article to the Editors, the Author agrees to submit the text for review by an expert in the scientific or disciplinary sector, or in a related sector, chosen from lists by the Editors.

Rules and exceptions - All submissions sent by Authors are submitted to peer review, and "Submitted to review" will be marked at the bottom of the first page.

The Editor-in-Chief or deputy Editor of the journal will assess contributions for which anonymity cannot be guaranteed (e.g. conference papers and/or articles for volumes of different authors or for other journals), which have already passed the scrutiny of an appropriate scientific committee (or similar).

In the "A chiare lettere" section, editorials and submissions for the "Confronti" and "Transizioni" subsections are not subject to review.

After consulting the Management Committee, the Editor-in-Chief may deny publication of submissions that are clearly compilations and/or are not scientific, original or relevant, without submitting them to review.

Relevance - Before review, the Editors assess the submission’s relevance in the scientific-disciplinary sector Jus 11 (studies related to the legal discipline of the religious phenomenon, including from a comparative perspective, both within the state system, and within confessional systems; the history of canon law; the history and systems in relations between Church and State; comparative law of religions; legal importance of ethical and religious pluralism). If the submission is relevant to other scientific sectors, the Editors will determine whether the topic addressed might be of interest for researchers in Scientific-disciplinary sector Jus 11; the submission may be submitted to review by experts from other sectors chosen on a case-by-case basis.

Criteria - Peer review cannot be influenced by the Author’s personal convictions, theoretical specialisation or school memberships, and must be based only on the following five parameters: 1) originality of the field of research and its results; 2) critical knowledge of the doctrine and case law of the topic in question; 3) soundness of the methodological foundations; 4) formal internal coherence (between title, summary, and abstract) and substantial coherence (with respect to the Author’s theoretical position); and 5) clarity and formal correctness of the presentation.

Reviewer’s duties and obligations - The expert to whom a submission is sent for review: --shall observe the aforementioned criteria accurately to the letter; --shall refuse review if he/she recognises the Author from the article; --shall treat the text to be assessed as confidential until it is published, and shall destroy all electronic and hard copies of the draft articles and his/her own comments once the Editors confirm that the submission has been accepted; --shall take into due account the Author’s years of research and academic qualifications provided in anonymous form (doctoral student, PhD, post-doc researcher, researcher, associate professor, full professor, magistrate, etc.); --shall not reveal the articles reviewed by him/her to others, nor disclose said documents even in part; --for each of the parameters, shall assign a grade between 1 and 5, using the appropriate form to be returned completed to the Editor-in-Chief, for his own and confidential use; --shall formulate a brief analysis, in free form, based on the text’s originality, methodological accuracy and form, judging objectively, prudently and respectfully.

Results - The results of the review of the text may be: a) not publishable; b) not publishable without revision, indicating where revision is needed; c) publishable after a few modifications/additions, to be explained in detail; d) publishable (except for possible editing for editorial criteria). Except in the last case, the Editors will inform the Author of the results, protecting the Reviewer’s anonymity. A favourable opinion for publication supposes that the overall quality of the submission is “good” (i.e. a total grade of no less than 15, with no “1s” and no more than two “2s”).

Revision of the texts - Should the Reviewer responsible for examining an article consider it necessary/appropriate to modify or add to the text, the Author is immediately informed, respecting the Reviewer’s anonymity. Therefore, the Author will highlight any changes made to the text according to the suggestions made, using a highlighter or a different colour of text, to assist the Reviewer in comparing the new version with the previous one.

Privacy - The Reviewers and members of the Editorial Board, Scientific Committee and Editors undertake to scrupulously keep confidential the content of the form and the opinion expressed, including after publication of the text.

Reviewers - The Reviewers are chosen among tenured and untenured, Italian and foreign, researchers who are experts in scientific-disciplinary sector Jus 11 or having made specific submissions to it, despite belonging to other sectors, who are available to examine quickly (generally within two weeks) the submission submitted for review, and who expressly accept the criteria and methods foreseen for the fulfilment of their duties. The home page of this Journal’s website contains a list of reviewers; at the end of each year, a list is also compiled of those requested to review submissions.

Binding - Based on the information in the form and the Reviewer’s brief assessment, the Editor-in-Chief decides whether to publish the text, ask the Author to revise it or to reject it. In exceptional cases, the decision not to publish may not be binding, provided the Editor-in-Chief and at least two members of the Scientific Committee consider it insufficiently motivated, and therefore decide to submit the text to a different Reviewer, whose assessment will be binding.