Ethical Code
Scientia. Journal of the Italian Society for the History of Science is a peer-reviewed, full open access academic journal, owned by the Italian Society for the History of Science. The journal adheres to the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines).
All parties involved in the journal—authors, editors, directors, and reviewers—are expected to be familiar with and uphold the following ethical principles.
Responsibilities of the Publisher
The relationship between the Editors-in-Chief, the Editorial Team, and the Publisher must be firmly grounded in the principle of editorial independence.
The Publisher promotes adherence to international best practices by the Journal’s scientific leadership and monitors their implementation. It ensures that ethical standards in scholarly publishing are upheld at every stage of the editorial process.
Responsibilities of the Editors and Editorial Board
Publication Decision
The Editors-in-Chief are solely responsible for the decision to publish submitted articles. The Editorial Team may consult the Scientific Advisory Board and is subject to applicable laws regarding defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
In making editorial decisions, the Editors rely on the evaluations of at least two external reviewers (one for section-specific submissions), selected for their expertise and engaged through a double-blind peer review process.
The Editors ensure fairness and integrity in the procedures used to assess, accept, or reject submissions and particularly oversee the rigor and anonymity of the peer review process.
Equity and Non-Discrimination
Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on their scholarly content, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political or academic affiliation.
The Editors promote freedom of expression and are committed to ensuring that commercial interests do not compromise scientific quality or ethical standards.
Confidentiality
Editors and all members of the Editorial and Scientific Committees must not disclose any information about submitted manuscripts to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, or the publisher, as appropriate.
Conflicts of Interest and Scientific Misconduct
The Editors monitor adherence to ethical standards by all authors. In cases of suspected misconduct—such as plagiarism, data manipulation or falsification, or duplicate publication—or of potential conflicts of interest, the Editors, in consultation with the Publisher and following COPE guidelines, will conduct an investigation to determine the facts. Depending on the outcome, this may result in a request for revision or the formal retraction of the article.
In the event of disputes raised via email with the Editors, the journal will respond within 30 days, with possible consultation from the Scientific Board or external experts.
Post-Publication Dialogue
The Editorial Team supports ongoing scholarly dialogue after publication through letters, editorials, and interactive formats such as audio and video, available via the journal’s online platform.
Corrections and Retractions
In the event that errors or corrections are reported, the Editors, together with the Publisher, will issue a correction notice (erratum) or retract the article in serious cases, following COPE guidelines.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Through the double-blind review process, reviewers assist the Editors in making editorial decisions and may provide feedback to authors to improve their manuscripts.
Timeliness
Reviewers who do not feel qualified to assess a manuscript or who are unable to meet the deadline should promptly notify the Editorial Team and withdraw from the review process.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared or discussed with others without authorization from the Editors. All information obtained through the review process must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
Objectivity
Reviews must be conducted objectively and respectfully. Reviewers must avoid personal criticism and express their opinions clearly, supported by constructive and well-reasoned arguments. They should report any significant similarities or overlaps with other works known to them.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or entities associated with the submission.
Responsibilities of Authors
Originality and Editorial Guidelines
Authors must ensure that their submitted work is original, unpublished, and not simultaneously under review elsewhere. Multiple or redundant submissions are considered unethical and unacceptable.
Authors must adhere to the journal’s editorial guidelines. All sources must be properly cited, and the use of others' work—whether paraphrased or quoted—must be explicitly acknowledged.
Authors are required to declare any use of artificial intelligence tools in the creation of text or images/graphics.
By submitting an article, authors acknowledge their full awareness of and consent to the peer review process.
Authorship
Authorship must be clearly defined. All individuals who have made significant contributions to the manuscript must be listed as co-authors. Other individuals who contributed substantially to specific parts of the work should be acknowledged accordingly.
Conflicts of Interest
All authors must declare the absence of conflicts of interest that may have influenced their research outcomes or interpretations. Authors must also disclose any financial support received for the research or project underpinning the article.
Corrections
If authors discover significant errors in their published work, they must promptly notify the Editorial Team and provide all necessary information for correction.
Peer Review Process
Submission: Manuscript submission and tracking are managed through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform. Lead Editors review submissions for anonymity and initiate the peer review process, selecting reviewers in consultation with the Editors-in-Chief and, when needed, with Section Editors. Lead Editors also oversee communication with authors and reviewers and ensure adherence to editorial timelines.
Review: The review process consists of two stages. First, the Editorial Team and Section Editors evaluate the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope and assess its scholarly quality. If accepted for review, the article is then submitted to two anonymous expert reviewers (or one, for section contributions).
Reviews are based on both content and formal criteria, and reviewers are required to complete a structured evaluation form provided by the journal. A third review may be requested if needed.
Authors receive the final verdict—accepted, minor/major revisions required, or rejected—along with reviewers’ comments, via the platform. In cases of major revisions, resubmitted manuscripts may be re-evaluated.
The Editorial Team assesses the revised version. The final decision on publication rests with the two Editors-in-Chief.
Gold Open Access Policy
All articles are published under a Gold Open Access model, in accordance with the journal’s policies. These policies are accepted by all authors at the time of manuscript submission.