Segreteria:
Associazione Storia della Città, c/o Stefania Ricci
Via I. Aleandri 9, 00040 Ariccia (Roma)

e-mail: srstoriadellacitta@gmail.com

 

Associazione Storia della Città
Indirizzo:
Via di Porta Marchetta 2
01019 Vetralla (VT)

Presidente dell’Associazione: Marco Cadinu
presidente@storiadellacitta.it

Segreteria dell’Associazione: Paola Raggi
segreteria@storiadellacitta.it

CODE OF ETHICS for the History of Urbanism review, the national yearbook of Storia della Città e del Territorio

“History of Urbanism”.

The National Yearbook of the History of the City and Territory (henceforth referred to as “Review”) is an international scientific review, established by Enrico Guidoni and dedicated to the study of the History of Urbanism, of the City and Territory in its various guises and expressions. It is a peer-reviewed journal and is inspired by the code of ethics for publications drawn up by COPE: Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The review respects the code of ethics set out here.

It is the obligation of all parties involved – Management, Scientific Committee, Members of the Editorial Board, Editorial Office, Referees and Authors – to know and share the ethical requirements set out below.

 

1. Peer Review Procedure

Every proposal is submitted for acceptance to the Director and the Scientific Committee, who assess its compliance with and suitability to the scientific issues of the review, its originality and exclusivity (contributions must be unpublished and not submitted simultaneously to other journals).

Then the article or essay is submitted to the evaluation of one or more anonymous reviewers (in a “single blind” format: anonymous paper and anonymous reviewer assessment for the authors) who will forward their comments to the Scientific Committee on the originality, completeness and quality of the work within six weeks of receipt.

The referees are chosen by the Director and the Scientific Committee in accordance with criteria of expertise and high-level qualification in the field, and are bound by the utmost confidentiality in their work.

Taking into account the assessment of the reviewers, the Scientific Committee makes its final decision on whether to publish the text in question. If the decision is positive, the paper is forwarded to the Editorial Board, which checks the author’s compliance with the editorial rules.

The Review carries out the same anonymous and objective evaluation procedure for contributions submitted for publication by members of the Scientific Committee, the Editorial Board and Correspondents.

 

2. Fairness

The Management and the Editorial Board evaluate articles submitted for publication solely on the basis of their scientific content and without any discrimination on the basis of the race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship or political orientation of the authors.

 

3. Confidentiality

The Management and the Editorial Board undertake to guarantee utmost confidentiality throughout the editorial process and shall not disclose any information related to the submitted articles to persons other than the author, the referees and the editor.

In order to avoid any possible conflict of interest, the Management and the members of the Scientific Committee and the Editorial Board further undertake not to disclose or use in their own studies the research results and contents of any unpublished article submitted for publication without the written consent of the author.

The Editorial Board shall keep in a confidential database the results of the refereeing process of the essays, whether they are accepted for publication or not.

 

4. Quality

Peer review is a scientific evaluation procedure intended to assist the Management, Scientific Committee and Editorial Board in making sound decisions on submitted articles and also allows the author to improve his/her paper on the basis of the feedback received (methodological, bibliographical, etc.).

The Scientific Committee periodically checks the peer-review process in order to introduce any potential improvements. The Scientific Committee reserves the right to use a further referee in the event of a divergence of opinions or when the decision on whether to publish the paper cannot be resolved internally.

 

5. Compliance with deadlines

A referee who believes he/she is not sufficiently competent in the subject matter of the article or who believes that he/she will not be able to perform the review within the required timeframe must promptly inform the Review’s Management and Editorial Board.

Any cooperation with a referee is considered suspended if the timeframe and methods foreseen by the evaluation procedure are not respected.

Objectivity of the evaluation

The peer review must be conducted objectively. Any personal judgement of the author is improper and inappropriate. Referees are required to give adequate reasons for their opinions.

Indication of texts

The referees shall undertake to provide precise bibliographical references of fundamental published works that may have been overlooked by the author, as well as archival references of collections considered essential for the specific research.

Referees must also inform the Editorial Office of any similarities or overlaps between the text they read and other published works known to them.

 

6. Conflicts of interest and disclosure

All information and guidance obtained by the referees in the course of the peer review is to be considered absolutely confidential and cannot be used for personal ends.

Referees are obliged not to accept articles for which a conflict of interest exists due to previous collaboration or competition with the author and/or their institution.

 

Obligations of authors

 

7. Access to and preservation of data

When requested, authors of articles must also make available the sources and/or data on which their research was based, in order that they may be retained for a reasonable period of time after publication and may if necessary be made accessible for verification purposes.

 

8. Originality and plagiarism

Authors are required to declare that they have compiled an original work in every part and have referenced all texts used.

 

9. Multiple, repetitive and/or competing publications

The author should not publish articles presenting the results of the same research in more than one journal.

Submitting the same text to more than one journal at the same time constitutes unethical and unacceptable behaviour and will result in exclusion from any further cooperation with the Review.

 

10. Reference to sources

The author must always provide accurate and specific references to the sources and contributions referred to in the article.

 

11. Authorship of the work

The authorship of the work must be properly attributed and all those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, organisation, implementation and revision of the research on which the article is based must be indicated as co-authors.

If other persons have made a significant contribution at any stage of the research, their contribution should be explicitly acknowledged.

In the case of co-written contributions, the author sending the text to the review must declare that he/she has correctly stated the names of all other co-authors, has obtained their approval of the final version of the article and has gained their consent to its publication in the Review.

 

12. Conflicts of interest and disclosure

All authors are required to explicitly declare that no conflicts of interest exist that might have influenced their results or interpretations of them. Authors must also indicate any funding bodies of the research and/or of the project from which the article originates.

 

13. Errors in published articles

If after submission an author identifies a relevant error or inaccuracy in one of his/her articles, he/she must promptly inform the Review’s editors and provide them with all the necessary information to indicate the appropriate corrections at the end of the article.

 

14. Anti-plagiarism measures

All articles submitted to the review are carefully checked for any improper use of other texts, including through the use of anti-plagiarism software.

In the event that plagiarism is identified, action shall be taken as recommended in the guidelines drawn up by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).

If readers report plagiarism in an article in the Review, the Editorial Board will:

1) inform the person who reported the abuse of the initiation of proceedings relating to the alleged plagiarist;

2) verify the degree of actual overlap between the article published in the Review and the text(s) allegedly plagiarised;

3) inform the Editor-in-Chief and the Scientific Committee of the Review in order to decide on the next steps collectively;

4) forward to the author of the article any evidence that emerges from the analysis of the allegedly plagiarised text(s), and ask for an explanation.

If the author is found to have actually plagiarised other texts, the Editorial Board:

1) will inform the author of the plagiarised article and the editor of the journal and/or series in which it appeared;

2) will publish an official retraction of the article that has appeared in the Review;

3) will not allow the plagiarist to publish further articles in the Review.