Peer Review Process

● Once preliminary assessment took place, Editorial Board will identify two referees, under the following principles: i) expertise with the issues covered in the text; ; (ii) knowledge of the language of the paper; (iii) adequacy of time to devote to peer review; (iv) lack of conflicts of interest. By accepting the assignment the referee confirms at the same time meeting the requirements listed from (i) to (iii): with regard to (iv), should a referee, after receiving the anonymous paper to be assessed, detect any situations that may jeopardize his/her objectivity, he/she is bound to promptly communicate them to the Editorial Board, that shall replace that referee with another one.

The referees are primarily selected by the Editorial Board both among the Journal's Advisory and Peer Review Board members, and through significant involvement of external referees. In the latter case, for maximum transparency, the Journal will publish at the end of the year a list with the names of the external referees involved in the peer review procedure without indicating the papers for which they carried out the report.

All referees shall be bound to the utmost confidentiality, not to disclose the contribution submitted to them entirely or in part, not to unduly use the latter for purposes other than those relating to the peer review and to guarantee that their assessments will remain strictly confidential and will not be disclosed to any third parties.

● The peer review is double blind, i.e. author and referees will remain anonymous. Referees, after examining the contribution, shall fill-in the peer review form submitted to them and disposable in Journal website. Referees shall give their assessment within the terms assigned by Editorial Board (and in any case no later than 30 days). Both the list of referees and the peer review forms received will be saved.

● Referees shall ground their assessment on the following criteria: 1) clarity in the identification of the theoretical targets that the contribution aims to reach and in the conclusions; clarity of exposition; 2) originality, innovation and critical approach (problem-based and, in any case, not merely descriptive); contribution to a better understanding of the issues dealt with; 3) consistency in the methodology adopted and coherence with arguments adduced; 4) consistency and coherence of internal structure and in the parts of the paper; 5) adequate overview on different ideas on the issues addressed in the paper and different schools of thought or case law; appropriateness of references.

● Referees shall give the assessment by filling-in the peer review form. Should the peer review procedure have been performed, paper may be:

a) accepted;

b) accepted under minor revisions;

c) return to the author with the indication of major revisions;

d) unaccepted.

The peer review form includes comments by the referee briefly showing reasons of the appraisal issued, according to all assessment criteria and suggested revisions to be made for author use. In case (a) for both referees, Editorial Board will merely communicate to the author result of the double blind peer review, with the consequent admission to publication. In case (d) for both referees, Editorial Board will merely communicate to the author refusal of publication. In cases (a) vs. (b), or (b) for both referees, Editorial Board will communicate to the author, besides the successful result of the double blind peer review, the minor revisions to be made as indicated by one or both anonymous referees and will verify that such revisions are then made, under penalty of non-publication of the contribution. In case (c) for both referees, the Editorial Board will communicate to the author the major revisions to be made as suggested by the anonymous referees; once the authors have carried out such revision, they shall present their contribution in mark-up version; each referee who had required major revisions shall issue, in short time (and in any case no later than 10 days), his/her definitive statement on the paper exclusively in terms of acceptancy or unacceptability of the paper. In case of different assessments of the two referees, i.e. in case one opts for the acceptability [within the meaning of (a) or (b)] and one for the return or the unacceptability [within the meaning of (c) or (d)], the publication of the contribution with or without revisions shall be subordinated to a final assessment that shall be unanimously issued by all the members of the Editorial Board.

Open Access Policy

We think that an open discussion will improve and develop knowledge; therefore access to Journal’s content is absolutely free.

No article processing charges - No article submission charges

For the same reasons, P.A. Persona e Amministrazione does not require any payment to authors for publishing articles: both review and publishing are totally free of charges.

Ethical Guidelines

The Journal Persona e Amministrazione (P.A.) takes inspiration from the principles of ethic statements of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. 

Download here the Ethical Guidelines of the Journal P.A., which shall be binding on the Journal's Boards, the referees and all the authors wishing to submit a paper to P.A.