Peer Review Process
Incontri guarantees a transparent editorial process, carried out using the double blind peer review system. The editorial board decides whether contributions should be accepted, rejected or accepted pending alterations. Any contribution accepted for publication is anonymized and submitted separately to at least two expert reviewers; it is also read by at least two of the journal’s editors.
The review period is expected to take between four and six weeks. Reviewers are asked to provide formative feedback, even if an article is not deemed suitable for publication in the journal. The editorial board reserves the right to refuse an article after submission in any stage of the editing process.
The double blind peer review process is applied to articles and review-articles, but not to features, reviews or notes. These are directly evaluated by the editorial board without hiding the identity of the author.
The managing editor collects all the reviewers’ responses and then provides authors with feedback on their articles based on the review reports. Each manuscript is reviewed by two reviewers; in case of a discrepancy a third reviewer is required. The final decision on whether to publish or abstain therefrom is made by the Editorial Team. Based on the reviewer reports it will make a recommendation for rejection, minor or major revisions, or acceptance. If revisions to an article are requested, a final decision on publication will only be made after the revisions have been submitted. Articles are published as soon as possible after approval.
On the basis of editorial objectives, Incontri aims to accept no more than 75% of submitted contributions.
For articles and reviews, Incontri makes use of a peer review editorial procedure that requires both the editorial board and editors to apply the following criteria:
- accessibility: (a) academic writing, (b) accessibility to a wider public
- structure and argument: (a) clear structure, (b) logic, (c) length of contribution (not too long), (d) persuasiveness of argument, (e) adequate supporting evidence
- correlation with existing research: (a) complete, accurate and up-to-date references, (b) accurate representation of existing research
- any additional observations
For all texts: editors and reviewers are obliged to evaluate the text in question, independent from any prior knowledge of the author.