Editorial Policy

Our editorial policy ensures the highest standards of academic integrity and scholarly excellence through rigorous peer review processes and comprehensive evaluation criteria.

Peer Review Foundation

Published articles in peer-reviewed journals are pivotal to the development of a structured and respected knowledge base. Peer review stands as a cornerstone in upholding rigorous standards in academic publishing. In Insieme Arti - Journal for Performing Arts, the process entails single-blind peer review, where the reviewers' identities are undisclosed to the authors.

Review Process Overview

Initial Assessment

Submissions undergo assessment by the editor to gauge their suitability for the journal scope and standards.

Expert Review

Papers deemed appropriate are dispatched to at least two independent expert reviewers for evaluation of scientific merit.

Editorial Decision

The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection rests with the editor, whose judgment is conclusive.

Editorial Ethics

Editors abstain from involvement in the assessment of papers they have authored, those by family members or colleagues, or those pertaining to products or services in which they have vested interests. Such submissions are subjected to standard procedures with independent peer review.

Evaluation Criteria

Independent reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following comprehensive criteria, ensuring thorough scrutiny by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editors, and external reviewers:

1

Originality

Manuscripts must demonstrate originality and innovation, presenting novel insights or approaches that contribute significantly to the advancement of the research field. Authors should clearly indicate how their work builds upon existing knowledge and addresses gaps in the literature.

2

Significance

Results should be interpreted with precision and depth, highlighting their significance within the research context. Conclusions must be well-supported by presented results, offering valuable insights and articulating broader implications for theory, practice, or further research.

3

Layout and Format

Authors must strictly adhere to the journal's Author Guidelines regarding manuscript formatting and structure. This includes proper section organization, citation style, and specific formatting requirements. Clear and concise presentation is essential for understanding and readability.

4

Reader Interest

Manuscripts should align closely with the journal's scope and readership interests. Research must be relevant and timely, addressing current issues or emerging trends. Authors should present compelling research questions, methodologies, and findings that engage readers and stimulate inquiry.

5

Language Quality

Manuscript language must meet high standards, ensuring clarity, coherence, and accuracy of expression. Authors should ensure their writing is comprehensible and free from grammatical errors or ambiguities. Clear communication is essential for understanding and engagement.

6

Overall Merit

The ultimate criterion for acceptance is the overall merit and contribution to the academic community. This encompasses research question significance, methodology rigor, presentation clarity, and potential impact. Manuscripts must demonstrate compelling rationale for publication and advance scholarly discourse.

Review Authority & Process

Editors and editorial board members have the authority to recommend manuscript acceptance or rejection, drawing on their expertise and knowledge. The Editor-in-Chief(s) may seek additional input from subject matter experts as needed. Peer review is considered complete when at least two independent reviewers submit detailed reports with their comments and recommendations.

Editorial Decision Categories

Editorial decisions are typically categorized as follows, based on comprehensive reviewer feedback and editorial assessment:

Accept as is

Rarely employed, this decision indicates that the manuscript is accepted in its original form without any modifications required.

Rare

Accept with Minor Revisions

The paper is accepted pending minor modifications or adjustments that can be easily addressed by the authors.

Minor Changes

Accept after Major Revisions

The manuscript is accepted contingent upon significant amendments. Authors must address substantial issues such as technical errors, data inadequacies, or need for more comprehensive analysis. Research question modifications may be suggested.

Substantial Work

Revise and Resubmit

The journal is open to reconsidering the manuscript in a subsequent review cycle, provided authors make significant revisions. This decision offers authors an opportunity to address concerns raised during initial review.

Second Chance

Reject the Manuscript

The manuscript is rejected without the option for resubmission due to major flaws, inadequacies, or incompatibility with journal scope and standards.

Final Decision

Review Comments Management

Quality Assurance

Review comments undergo scrutiny by the Editor-in-Chief to ensure appropriateness for scholarly communication. If comments contain sensitive information or are unsuitable for dissemination, they are modified by the Editor-in-Chief. Such comments should be included in the confidential section of the review form, accessible only to editors. This ensures the integrity and professionalism of the peer review process.

Our Commitment

Fair & Unbiased

Rigorous single-blind peer review ensuring objective evaluation

Timely Process

Efficient review cycles with clear timelines and communication

Academic Excellence

Maintaining highest standards of scholarly publishing

Expert Review

Evaluation by recognized experts in relevant fields